Forbes lists the Pope of Rome as the 5th most powerful person in the world in 2010.

BrightCandle · Jan 7, 2011

LittleLambofJesus said:
Whatever

"Whatever" happened to the Protestants and Evangelicals speaking out against the adoration and exaltation of the Papacy?

LittleLambofJesus · Jan 7, 2011

BrightCandle said:
"Whatever" happened to the Protestants and Evangelicals speaking out against the adoration and exaltation of the Papacy?

My bro W. Tyndale did a fairly good job of that me thinks

http://www.christianforums.com/t7495160/
Tyndale and defying the Pope

BrightCandle · Jan 7, 2011

LittleLambofJesus said:
My bro W. Tyndale did a fairly good job of that me thinks

http://www.christianforums.com/t7495160/
Tyndale and defying the Pope

True, but who is crying out with the voice of Tyndale in 2011?

LittleLambofJesus · Jan 7, 2011

BrightCandle said:
True, but who is crying out with the voice of Tyndale in 2011?

I give up

VictorC · Jan 7, 2011

BrightCandle said:
VictorC: Your unsubscribing from this thread is proof positive of your admission that the sword of truth has vanquished your trumped up falsehoods.

It was a decision conceding the impossibility to converse with someone who is dishonest. The last straw was a claim to comply with the Ten Commandments after acknowledging that he doesn't keep a Biblical sabbath, he is guilty of adultery, and bearing false witness. This comes on the heels of an admission that we have been delivered from the law that held us in the past tense, and that law was the Ten Commandments.

Lysimachus · Jan 7, 2011

VictorC said:
It was a decision conceding the impossibility to converse with someone who is dishonest. The last straw was a claim to comply with the Ten Commandments after acknowledging that he doesn't keep a Biblical sabbath, he is guilty of adultery, and bearing false witness. This comes on the heels of an admission that we have been delivered from the law that held us in the past tense, and that law was the Ten Commandments.

And this warped interpretation of yours concerning the 10 Commandments is the very language that spells the death knell of the professed Christian world. Especially in light that it contradicts the scriptures in every way shape and form.

The binding nature of the 10 commandments in the New Testament:

Matthew 5:17-22
Matthew 19:16-22
Mark 10:17-21
Luke 18:18-23
Romans 2:12,13
Romans 6:2
Romans 7:7-16
Romans 8:6-8
Romans 13:8-10
James 1:22-25
James 2:8-26
John 14:15
John 14:21
Ephesians 6:1,2
Colossians 3:20
1 John 2:3-7
1 John 3:4-8
1 John 3:22-24
1 John 5:2-4
2 John 1:4-6
Revelation 11:19
Revelation 12:17
Revelation 14:12
Revelation 22:14

And a few Old Testament Passages that I believe apply well past into the New Covenant Era:

Ecclesiastes 12:13,14
Psalms 119:89
Psalms 111:7-10

It looks like the Testimony of Scripture is against you VictorC. These passages clearly, and unequivocally fly in the face of those who wish to declare the 10 commandments "abolished".

I still remember the old days when antinomian Christians as yourself used to never argue that the 10 commandments were abolished only that the Sabbath had changed. However, it became an ongoing problem in Christianity because this argument of theirs wasn't working. As the years developed, however, these baal-worshiping, sun-dial dreaming, hermetic dragon honoring "Christians", who turn their faces toward the east, decided that they better come up with some better arguments, and that being that the 10 commandments were abolished all together! You see, they realized they weren't being "consistent", so the Devil gave them a new way to try and be sneaky and see how they could manipulate the Word of God.

I like how Ellen White says about this very problem:

As the work of God's people moves forward with sanctified, resistless energy, planting the standard of Christ's righteousness in the church, moved by a power from the throne of God, the great controversy will wax stronger and stronger, and will become more and more determined. Mind will be arrayed against mind, plans against plans, principles of heavenly origin against principles of Satan. Truth in its varied phases will be in conflict with error in its ever-varying, increasing forms, and which, if possible, will deceive the very elect. (Lift Him Up, 314)

And yes, I DARE to quote her. Because it is the words themselves that vindicate doing so. They strike right at the heart of the issue. VictorC, you might as well brace yourself. We are not giving up. It is a battle to the bitter end. And you all will have NO peace concerning these warnings until the consummation of our Lord in the clouds of glory.

"Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YE WORKERS OF LAWLESSNESS!" (Luke 24:13-27)

Any honest seeker for truth, who opens their Bible and reads, will not gather one particle of the error that the elements of the 10 commandments are no longer binding.

Genesis 2:3, Isaiah 56; Isaiah 58:13,14; Mark 2:27,28; Matthew 24:20; Luke 6:9; Luke 14:3; Luke 23:56; Hebrews 4; Acts 13:42-44; Acts 16:13; Acts 17:2; Acts 18:4 -- ALL of these scriptures testify to the validity and sacredness of the Sabbath commandment well into the New Testament era. Not to mention all the previous texts regarding the eternal, unchangeable nature of God's commandments, that "stand fast for ever and ever and are DONE in truth and uprightness".

In All Truth and Righteousness

~ Lysimachus

VictorC · Jan 7, 2011

Lysimachus said:
And this warped interpretation of yours concerning the 10 Commandments is the very language that spells the death knell of the professed Christian world. Especially in light that it contradicts the scriptures in every way shape and form.

The binding nature of the 10 commandments in the New Testament:

Matthew 5:17-22 - old covenant era
Matthew 19:16-22 - old covenant era
Mark 10:17-21 - old covenant era
Luke 18:18-23 - old covenant era
Romans 2:12,13 - old covenant condition
Romans 6:2 - unrelated
Romans 7:7-16 - directly opposed to your contention
Romans 8:6-8 - reliance on carnality that is noncompliant
Romans 13:8-10 - uses law as guide and not jurisdictional
James 1:22-25 - not related to 10c
James 2:8-26 - 1st refutes division of law, 2nd uses law as guide not jurisdictional
John 14:15 - Differentiates commandments John documented, not from 10c's
John 14:21 - Differentiates commandments John documented, not from 10c's
Ephesians 6:1,2 - uses law as guide and not jurisdictional
Colossians 3:20 - not related to 10c
1 John 2:3-7 - you should have continued, these are not 10c
1 John 3:4-8 - also violates covenant you are not compliant to
1 John 3:22-24 - this is where John documents commandments in NC, not 10c
1 John 5:2-4 - not 10c
2 John 1:4-6 which John records from beginning in Jn 13:34
Revelation 11:19 - no Book of Law, no 10c, is NC covenant plainly visible
Revelation 12:17 - not 10c
Revelation 14:12 - not 10c
Revelation 22:14 - not 10c

As you can see, none of these convey the jurisdiction of the covenant from Mount Sinai into the new covenant era. Some of these you didn't determine what they refer to, and many of these you lifted from epistles that plainly explain the end of the Ten Commandments.

Lysimachus said:
It looks like the Testimony of Scripture is against you VictorC. These passages clearly, and unequivocally fly in the face of those who wish to declare the 10 commandments "abolished".

This is twice now that you have concluded the Apostle Paul to be a liar, and Peter endorsed Paul's epistles as Scripture. That is what you're up against, and not a claim I made from a vacuum.

Lysimachus said:
I still remember the old days when antinomian Christians as yourself used to never argue that the 10 commandments were abolished only that the Sabbath had changed.

Don't you think you should document a New Testament author for this claim? It would seem your memory only goes back to uninspired ECF's, and not Scripture.

Lysimachus said:
I like how Ellen White says about this very problem:

As the work of God's people moves forward with sanctified, resistless energy, planting the standard of Christ's righteousness in the church, moved by a power from the throne of God, the great controversy will wax stronger and stronger, and will become more and more determined. Mind will be arrayed against mind, plans against plans, principles of heavenly origin against principles of Satan. Truth in its varied phases will be in conflict with error in its ever-varying, increasing forms, and which, if possible, will deceive the very elect. (Lift Him Up, 314)

And yes, I DARE to quote her.

You do realize that the entire theme of the Great Con is based on an accusation that Ellen White can't document, don't you? Consistent with her admitted inspiration from the devil, she fabricated the theme as well as visions she didn't even believe in, which I showed from the 1858 draft.

Lysimachus said:
VictorC, you might as well brace yourself. We are not giving up. It is a battle to the bitter end. And you all will have NO peace concerning these warnings until the consummation of our Lord in the clouds of glory.

But you realize your lord's time is short, don't you? That's why he prowls as a lion seeking whoever he can devour and making a big fuss.

Lysimachus said:
Any honest seeker for truth, who opens their Bible and reads, will not gather one particle of the error that the elements of the 10 commandments are no longer binding.

Appealing to an honest seeker isn't going to pan out very well in light of your continual false witness and conclusion that Scripture is a lie you have a license to discard. It hasn't garnered any sympathy from me, and the abandonment of this thread is indicative of a loss of interest in the false gospel you brought to the table.

Admit it - you remain guilty before God because of your claim of remaining the property of the first covenant rightfully described as "the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones", unredeemed by the Lamb and reliant on your works of the flesh and a stranger to God's rest.

It is God's will that all would come to a saving knowledge of His salvation and adoption as His own children, who He Promised were sovereign to the law that was ordained to a people who have no claim to eternal life apart from His redemption. It continues to be my hope that you come to Jesus and leave your sins behind.

Lysimachus · Jan 9, 2011

VictorC said:
Matthew 5:17-22 - old covenant era
Matthew 19:16-22 - old covenant era

Drawing back to Old Covenant era, and declaring it still in force in the New Covenant. The antecedent to "all things have been accomplished" is "till heaven and earth pass", establishing the enforcement well into the New Covenant era

Mark 10:17-21 - old covenant era

Jesus says: "Mr. Rich Young Ruler, you know the commandments...but in a couple years, I'm gonna die, and guess what? You won't need to keep these anymore!" LOL. Do you see how ridiculous you sound VictorC? Yeah, it's pretty tragic. You know very well that Christ came to teach the principles of the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant.

Luke 18:18-23 - old covenant era

Same as above.

Romans 2:12,13 - old covenant condition

In a present-tense, and validated as present concerning the Gentiles having those same laws written in their hearts in verses 14 and 15.

Romans 6:2 - unrelated

Since sin is the "transgression of the law" (1 Jn 3:4), it is very much related. As the law defines sin, we are not to live in sin (law breaking) any longer when we are lead by the Spirit under Grace.

Romans 7:7-16 - directly opposed to your contention

Vindicates it. The life of sin must die, or else the law will condemn us to death. The Law is Holy, Just and Good. The knowledge of sin comes through the Law, and it leads us to Christ. It helps us to realize our sinful, pathetic condition, and our need of a cleansing Saviour. Therefore, when we come to the foot of the cross, we are to allow Christ to wash away our sins. When we are clean from sin (law breaking), then the minister of death, which is the Law, has no power to condemn the sinner.

Romans 8:6-8 - reliance on carnality that is noncompliant

Those who are serious about putting away sin in their lives, and are lead by the spirit are "subject to the Law of God". Is your mind subject to God's Law VictorC? You haven't appeared so.

Romans 13:8-10 - uses law as guide and not jurisdictional

What? Oh, so now the law does have "some" validity in the NT? Hmm...wow.

James 1:22-25 - not related to 10c

Every law is related to the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments are the foundation for which all laws are built on. See Matthew 22:36-40.

James 2:8-26 - 1st refutes division of law, 2nd uses law as guide not jurisdictional

First, he quotes 2 of the 10 commandments as an example:

"(11) For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law."

Then he concludes with a jurisdictional statement:

(12) "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty."

Interesting. All one has to do is read the text itself to see that it flies directly against your conclusion.

John 14:15 - Differentiates commandments John documented, not from 10c's

It includes the 10 commandments. All 10 commandments are the commandments of love. The first 4 relate to our love to God, and the last 6 relate to our love for fellowmen.

John 14:21 - Differentiates commandments John documented, not from 10c's

Commandments are commandments, and the 10 are every bit a part of them. Since Jesus wrote the 10 commandments at Sinai, and these commandments are the commandments of love, and John is discussing the commandments of love, the 10 commandments are every bit a part of the package.

Ephesians 6:1,2 - uses law as guide and not jurisdictional

So if you dishonor your Godly parents, and disobey them, and continue to do so without repenting of it, you can still be saved?

Colossians 3:20 - not related to 10c

Yes, no relation "whatsoever" to the 5th commandment. Gotcha.

1 John 2:3-7 - you should have continued, these are not 10c

You mean continuing about "hating your brother"? Well, you see, Jesus already established that this commandment is an extension of the 6th commandment in Matthew 5:21,22.

1 John 3:4-8 - also violates covenant you are not compliant to

One day you will realize just how much God loved you, and was kindly trying to get through to you concerning the immutability of His eternal, glorious law. Your very reasoning concerning these passages is precisely the reason we are in the mess we're in. And not until the law is kept by faith, fully, and completely, can Christ come back to claim His people as His own.

Ask yourself the question: Is it sinful to have other gods before Him? It is sinful to bow down or worship graven images? Is it sinful to take God's name in vain? Is it sinful to dishonor your parents? Is it sinful to kill, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, and covet? If so, these 9 commandments are every bit in force in the New Testament. Your only real issue is with the 4th commandment Sabbath. Had it not been for that commandment, I can guarantee you that you, nor the rest of the Antinomian Fallen Christian world, would have come up with any such arguments concerning the 10 commandments not being applicable to the New Covenant time frame. But since the 4th commandment is there, you are forced to try and destroy the whole law. One day you will realize that the crux of your theological gymnastics is an unwillingness to obey the 4th commandment. That is the REAL heart of the issue. And you are unwilling to accept the irrefutable truth that the original Decalogue is in the Heavenly Sanctuary in the Heavenly Ark judging mankind. Paul declares that we are to come boldly before the Throne of Grace, and James declares we are to look "intently" into that Law of Liberty. When making these connections, we know what Laws are being spoken about.

But God wrote the Bible in such a way to screen people. To screen all the dishonest people, and give them room to manipulate His Word. Only the spiritual mind can discern spiritual things, and the Bible can only be understood when in the Spirit. Otherwise, it is carnal and sold under sin.

1 John 3:22-24 - this is where John documents commandments in NC, not 10c

So you can believe and love one another, yet murder, steal, commit adultery, dishonor your parents, bear false witness, and worship idols? Hmmm...I see. I suppose you have no perception that "believing" is a big package. Believing is far more than a mere mental ascent to the truth. True belief is manifested in our actions, as we go forward by faith. Loving one another includes all last 6 commandments. Using "scripture with scripture", Matthew 22:40 has already shown us the 10 commandments are very much a part of this.

1 John 5:2-4 - not 10c

Yes they are. Don't keep arguing.

2 John 1:4-6 which John records from beginning in Jn 13:34

You seem to fail, once again, to remember that the commandments of love are the 10 commandments. Yet Christ is showing us the missing part. One can keep the commandments legalistically--where it is nothing but a form. But Christ is showing how to take those same laws and write them in our hearts. This is the New Covenant promise: See Hebrews 10:16. Jeremiah 31:33. Jeremiah 31:33 was written in the Old Covenant, when when God declares "My law", He is referring to the current law in existence. That same law which was back then is to now transfer to the heart in the New Covenant, so that obedience to them is motivated by true love, and not compulsion.

Revelation 11:19 - no Book of Law, no 10c, is NC covenant plainly visible

Book of Law is not present because it was the book of the law "against" us, containing the OT types. See Deut 31:26, Col 2:14. Only the 10 commandments are present, and that is what carries into the New Covenant, for which God declares "stand fast for ever and ever" (Ps 111:8) You may argue and say that the 10c were written in the Book of the Law, but this is besides the point, and a diversionary tactic at best, as we know that Moses obviously recorded/copied down the 10c. But the primary focus of the "book of the law" was to do with those ceremonies pointing forward to Christ's death. Copied or not, the 10 commandments in stone were made so that men would never think they will ever change or be abrogated. 10 out of the 613 were specifically carved in Stone to help prevent people from entertaining the thought that these 10 would ever be abolished. But even with God going out of His way to do this, individuals as yourself still choose to not bat an eye to it, and stubbornly declare God's law as "abolished".

Revelation 12:17 - not 10c

Prove it's not the 10c. Otherwise, I don't see a need for God to repeat Himself.

Revelation 14:12 - not 10c
Revelation 22:14 - not 10c

Same as above.

You do realize that the entire theme of the Great Con is based on an accusation that Ellen White can't document, don't you? Consistent with her admitted inspiration from the devil, she fabricated the theme as well as visions she didn't even believe in, which I showed from the 1858 draft.

I get entertained on how you guys just always love to pick on Ellen White, because you don't know how else to find fault with us. Really Victor, stick with the issues. My sentiments on these passage pre-date Ellen White. Have you ever read the writings of John Wesley, Charles Wesley, Dr. Hiscox, Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Isaac Newton, etc. etc.? Ellen White's sentiments on the validity of the 10 commandments reflect the writings of these men.

She never admitted inspiration of the devil.

She didn't fabricate any themes or visions she didn't believe in.

And she never wrote the Great Controversy to prove that she can document.

All these allegations are false, stupid, and erroneous. SORRY!

You have provided NO proof whatsoever. Only distorted records taken out of context.

But you realize your lord's time is short, don't you? That's why he prowls as a lion seeking whoever he can devour and making a big fuss.

Wooo...scarry.

Appealing to an honest seeker isn't going to pan out very well in light of your continual false witness and conclusion that Scripture is a lie you have a license to discard. It hasn't garnered any sympathy from me, and the abandonment of this thread is indicative of a loss of interest in the false gospel you brought to the table.

*Solute!* As you say sir!

Admit it - you remain guilty before God because of your claim of remaining the property of the first covenant rightfully described as "the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones", unredeemed by the Lamb and reliant on your works of the flesh and a stranger to God's rest.

I admit nothing of the sort. I know in Whom I believe, and I am 100% sure that the 10 commandments are still valid for the New Covenant. I know with ABSOLUTE certainty. The ministration of death is only in effect against individuals who despise it, and reject it. Therefore, it brings death. Only can you be in harmony with them in the Spirit. Paul is using the illustration of tables of stone, which were the minister of death, showing how the glory of Moses has been removed. But now that which is more glorious, the ministration of the Spirit by Christ, makes the law all the more glorious.

The Gospel message for these last days is "Christ in the Law". Christ is a living, walking, manifestation of the 10 commandments. To Have Christ's character is to live in Harmony with His 10 commandment precepts.

It is God's will that all would come to a saving knowledge of His salvation and adoption as His own children, who He Promised were sovereign to the law that was ordained to a people who have no claim to eternal life apart from His redemption. It continues to be my hope that you come to Jesus and leave your sins behind.

Amen. I agree 100% of this. But in so doing, I entreat you with utmost sincerity, do not belittle God's Royal Law. It is only by the law that you can see your need of a Cleansing Saviour. Without it, we cannot and will not see our wretchedness. Without the law, there is no need of a Redeemer. This is why the Law is our schoolmaster that leads us to Christ.

LittleLambofJesus · Jan 9, 2011

This thread is still going?

Author of Vindicating the Historicist Hermeneutic

from scratch · Jan 9, 2011

Lysimachus said:
I would also like to add a few more factors concerning the problems for Christians being able to differentiate between the Moral Code and the Mosaic Code:

The Moral Code was "incorporated" into the Mosaic Code, yet still was distinct from the ceremonial. In other words, the Israelites after Sinai were not living without the Moral Code. It was simply written down for them the first time, although the moral principles of the 10 commandments existed prior to Sinai--by word of mouth, handed down from father to son. 430 years of slavery, however, did some great damage in their knowledge of these moral principles.

So the Mosaic Code included both the Moral Code and the Ceremonial Code into one comprehensive system of law for the Jewish people. And that's all that mattered to them.

Since they were so forgetful of the Moral Code, it was posted in stone as a perpetual reminder, because of their stiffneckedness and continued forgetfulness.

Terminology, however, can sometimes trip up people, so we have to be careful not to get caught up with terms. In most cases, when we use the term "Mosaic Code", we're meaning the "ceremonial code". But for the Jewish people whom Moses was trying to educate, the distinction mattered little to them. They were hard of understanding. To them the law was the law, ceremonial or not.

But there was definitely a reason why 10 out of the 613 laws were seared in stone. And there was a reason why those tables were put into the Ark of the Covenant.

Keep in mind that the entire Mosaic Sanctuary was simply a pattern of the heavenly, and it foreshadowed the ministry of Christ in the New Covenant.

When we come boldly before the throne of Grace, the Father sits on His throne above the Mercy Seat, and the Son pleads on our behalf. Notice the following image where the man is standing before the Father, and Jesus is his mediator:

That is not to be taken literally, of course, but symbolically. As we follow Christ into the sanctuary by faith. We come before the Throne of Grace, not literally, but by faith. The earthly Mosaic Sanctuary was a pattern of this system. When we follow Christ into the Most Holy Place, what do we see?

We see the Law before us. This is that law of liberty that we are to look intently into according to James 1 and 2. It is an exact transcript of the 10 commandment law given at Sinai. This is the "testimony". Revelation 11:19; 15:5 tell us the testimony is in the sanctuary, and the Tables of Stone were called the "testimony" in Exodus for which Moses put into the Ark.

We are now being judged by that law of liberty, the grand original. This law is eternal, immutable, unchangeable, and everlasting. God had given a copy of this law to Moses, so that Moses could incorporate it into a much larger comprehensive system of law for the Israelite nation. It was not because God was trying to make it hard for them, but He was trying to teach them some lessons, for which we may not perfectly understand. But we do know that God was trying to teach them the great plan of salvation. All the ceremonial activities pointed forward to real spiritual applications, for which these types met their antitype at the cross and Christ's High Priestly ministration in the Heavenly Sanctuary.

Thye missed the halo around the 4th in your picture.

LittleLambofJesus · Jan 9, 2011

KEWL PICTURE!

Young) Daniel 12:1 `And at that time stand up doth Michael, the great head, who is standing up for the sons of thy people, and there hath been a time of distress, such as hath not been since there hath been a nation till that time, and at that time do thy people escape, every one who is found written in the book/scroll.

Rev 21:27 And not no may be entering into Her every *common-thing and [*the] one *doing an abomination and falsehood, except those having been written in the scroll/book of the Life of the lamb-kin.

Kindgdom Bible Studies Lambs Book of Life Part 1
*SNIP*

..........According to the Emphatic Diaglott the correct rendering of the latter part of this passage is: "The Book of the Life of the Lamb." Now, what is meant by this term – THE BOOK OF THE LIFE OF THE LAMB? The wise man said, "...of the making of many books there is no end..." (Eccl. 12:12).

VictorC · Jan 9, 2011

Lysimachus said:
Drawing back to Old Covenant era, and declaring it still in force in the New Covenant. The antecedent to "all things have been accomplished" is "till heaven and earth pass", establishing the enforcement well into the New Covenant era

It would seem your reading of Matthew 5 dismissed Jesus promising His intent to fulfill the law and the prophets before heaven and earth passed away. According to your dismissal, Jesus is never going to return in a second advent until after the elements melt (itself a prophecy), which is ridiculous.

Lysimachus said:
Jesus says: "Mr. Rich Young Ruler, you know the commandments...but in a couple years, I'm gonna die, and guess what? You won't need to keep these anymore!"

It is tragic that you do not know the Gospel.

That young ruler didn't keep the commandments, and Jesus knew it. You don't keep the commandments, and you don't have an exemption apart from God's final determination: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" (Romans 11:32). This passage addresses those who received the covenant from Mount Sinai, and God's determination is shown as the means to include the Gentiles into His salvation, and the Gentiles never received the covenant from Mount Sinai.

What you seem to ignore is that no one in our penal system is there because of a crime (or sin) that is committed, but rather is there because of a transgression to criminal code. When anyone is charged with a crime, traffic violation, or whatever, they are brought before the appropriate authority with the citation of the code and paragraph they have transgressed. If the police can't cite a code that has been violated, he can't write a ticket or make an arrest.

The same is true under earlier legal systems.

Matthew 27
11 Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" So Jesus said to him, "It is as you say."
12 And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing.
13 Then Pilate said to Him, "Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?"
14 But He answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly.
15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished.
16 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.
17 Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?"
18 For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy.
19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, "Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him."
20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.
21 The governor answered and said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" They said, "Barabbas!"
22 Pilate said to them, "What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said to him, "Let Him be crucified!"
23 Then the governor said, "Why, what evil has He done?" But they cried out all the more, saying, "Let Him be crucified!"
24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it."

Pilate was looking for someone to identify what legal ordinance had been violated. None was presented, and Pilate called Jesus "just" because He had not violated the law Pilate was authorized to cite violations of. It is all a matter of jurisdiction, and if you can't cite it, you can't write it.

Romans 4
13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,
15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all...

Paul's credentials were as a Pharisee tutored under Gamaliel, with an intimate knowledge of the law. It wasn't until he spent 3 years conferring with God instead of flesh after his experience on the road to Damascus that he put all the dots together. Paul identifies the difference between sin and transgression - one is a condition of man, and the other is a violation of a legal code demonstrated to retain jurisdiction over the accused. Sin existed before the law did, and it continues to this day, the reason for God's promise "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more". But sin is only imputed (charged) when transgression occurs: "where there is no law there is no transgression".

The law does not contain a means to rectify transgressions outside of atonement by the blood of the innocent or the death penalty. Either way, the law exacts wrath for transgressions, and does not contain God's attribute of mercy.

As long as you remain within the law's jurisdiction, you remain charged with transgressions to it and unreconciled to God. It is by Christ's propitiation that fulfilled the law that we have been reconciled to the law's Creator by our faith in His finished work. The change of our reckoning as children of Israel to children of God releases us from the law that had a specific realm of jurisdiction. This recognition of limited jurisdiction is employed today in the State of Israel - shops can operate on the sabbath as long as they're operated by Palestinians, because they can't break the sabbath; only a Jew can break the sabbath because they alone have the law containing it.

This is the reason that Paul instructed us to cast off the covenant from Mount Sinai, which was the law specifically inclusive of the covenant inscribed on tablets of stone known as the Ten Commandments, which he elsewhere addresses in 2 Corinthians 3:7-13 and Romans 7:6-7. As Paul wrote in Romans 3:

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Paul also described the change of our status in God's adoption in Galatians 4.

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Our change of status legally extracts us from the law's limited jurisdiction, and it cannot impute sin to us regardless of continued transgressions that everyone is guilty of continually. The law's jurisdiction is concluded in the past tense, no longer having the ability to impute sin to us.

So you see, God doesn't accept delusions of grandeur that claim to comply with the holy law He ordained. Those He hasn't redeemed as His own children have no claim to eternal life, for they are not His.

Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."

Those retained by Hagar, the covenant from Mount Sinai, will not inherit eternal life.

from scratch · Jan 9, 2011

BrightCandle said:
I don't think that is the reason. VictorC finally sees that he cannot defend his position in the face of overwhelming historical and biblical evidence.

Couldn't disagree more with you self edifying conclusion. The belligerent are a hard thing and will continue in their beligerence and ignorance. Yes I understand that you might say the same.

NumberOneSon · Jan 10, 2011

Lysimachus said:
If this isn't majoring and minoring, I don't know what is. I find it interesting that you invest your time to pick on these insignificant straws, yet at the end, conclude that you don't have a problem with SDA's picking the 538 A.D. date. You'd be far better off recognizing the points brought up as "one of the many ingredients" which point to the significance of the 538 A.D. date.

You said the commencement of the 1260 years in 538 was dependent on a decree given at the third Orleans council, and you made it a point to claim Orleans III was not narrow or limited in scope. You also said the “following information” would prove this. How was I majoring in minors by challenging the arguments you used to prove your statement? You suggested that the council wasn’t limited because it wasn’t a providential synod, but what I was trying to get across to you was that the Catholic Church recognizes Orleans III as a national synod, and national synods are limited in scope because they are not ecumenical.

Again, you claimed the commencement of the 1260 years at 538 was dependent on a decree from Orleans III compelling the consciences of men that had been given full jurisdiction through Justinian’s Code. So it was important enough to be used as the first proof in your post, but its an “insignificant straw” when I decide to question it?

Lysimachus said:
Please keep in mind that all one has to do is count backward from 1798. We already know what occurred in 1798, and most do not dispute that, according to historians, 1798 was a devastating blow to the Papacy. Counting 1260 years backwards, we arrive at 538 A.D.
Considering this was the year the Gothic impediment was removed. While the Ostrogoths did not disappear in 538 A.D., the decisive battle had been won, and the handwriting was on the wall.

As I explained in post #533, after the failed siege the Goths still outnumbered the Byzantines almost two to one, and Gibbon testified that Witiges’ army was still quite powerful despite its weakened condition. Hodgkin also mentioned that, in Belisarius’ view, the Goths “were still essentially stronger than their own forces” and that it had only been by “dexterity and good-luck” that the Goths had been successfully outgeneraled at that point. The situation was so tenuous that Belisarius believed if the Goths attained even “one happy stroke” due to the over-confidence of the Byzantine officers, the enemy would “become dangerous, perhaps irresistible”(Italy and Her Invaders, Vol. VI, pg. 321).

And that is precisely what happened; following 540AD, there was division among the imperial officers, and combined with several other factors I had mentioned, the work of the imperial restoration was undone in a few months and the Byzantine position in Italy completely changed. If you study the Gothic War you will find that both parties had opportunities to win the conflict after 538AD, and that the proverbial handwriting was certainly not on the wall for the Goths.

Lysimachus said:
The Third Synod of Orleans in A.D. 538 was not narrow or limited in scope. And yes he did.

Again, Orleans III was narrow or limited in scope because the canons of a national synod would have been limited to the provinces under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitans involved (Lyons, Vienne, Sens, Bourges, and Rouen - all provinces within the Merovingian Frankish kingdom). At that point in time, the only canons that would not have had narrow or limited scope would have been those passed by an ecumenical council, a general council later given universal authority (like Constantinople I), or certain canons of lesser synods that had been incorporated into canon law through the first four ecumenical councils. The other types of councils (national, provincial, diocesan, etc.) were all limited to varying degrees.

The Catholic Encyclopedia even states that the canons/statutes of national, provincial, or diocesan councils constitute local law, thereby limiting their scope. So in your mind Heiks “proved” that Orleans III was not a local synod simply because he said so; however, the Catholic Church defines the canons of national councils like Orleans III as local law, proving only that Heiks’ didn’t even take the time to look up the Church’s position on the matter.

“Next to the pope, the bishops united in local councils, and each of them individually, are sources of law for their common or particular territory; canons of national or provincial councils, and diocesan statutes, constitute local law.”
(The Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon Law)

Lysimachus said:
”The Third Synod of Orleans, like the second, was not merely a provincial Synod, since bishops of several ecclesiastical provinces took part in it.

Right, it wasn’t “merely a provincial synod”, but it also wasn’t an ecumenical synod either; Orleans III was a national synod and its jurisdiction was limited to the Merovingian Frankish kingdom, and the aforementioned metropolitans that participated.

Heiks’ is guilty of a false equivalence in this instance by suggesting that Orleans III did not have a narrow or limited scope simply because it was not “merely a provincial synod”. The fact is that a national synod, although not as limited as a provincial, still has a narrow and limited scope because it is authoritative for the church of a particular nation or kingdom, not the Church universal. I don’t know how to make this any clearer. Heiks simply got it wrong by claiming that the Council of Orleans in 538AD did not represent local law and was not limited in scope; the Catholic Church’s own definition of canon law proves otherwise.

Lysimachus said:
But it was still enough to elevate the laws of the church to the level of the state, or at least, to a significant degree. Once again, this straw-picking is missing the spiritual picture and majoring and minoring.

Justinian’s legislation was enough to elevate the “sacred canons” mentioned in the four ecumenical councils; it was not enough to elevate the canons of Frankish national synods like Orleans III because they were not included in the statutes that constituted the “sacred canons” of the universal Church. Not straw picking…just explaining to you why some of the information you provided is wrong and does not prove the 538AD date.

Lysimachus said:
But you do seem to have failed in studying Froom's work as thoroughly as you should have.

Froom states the following:

"JUSTINIAN'S NOVELLAE EXTEND EXISTING LAWS AND INCORPORATE CANON LAW

The Novellae, or New Constitutions, in nine collections, include various religious enactments of Justinian, two of which, numbers 9 and 131, have been quoted in part. It is to be noted that, in addition to confirming the older laws in the Code and making new enactments in the Novellae, Justinian also incorporated into the imperial Civil Law the body of canon law recognized in the church. {1950 LEF, PFF1 934.6}

Novella 131 enacts for the whole empire the canons of the first four general councils, Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, thereby including many enactments of lesser synods which were declared in force by the first canon of the council of Chalcedon. [FOOTNOTE 8]

Footnote 8:

The first canon of the General Council of Chalcedon (451) declared in force and thus made obligatory upon the entire church the provisions of certain local synods:
Canon 1. "The canons hitherto put forth by the holy fathers in all the Synods shall have validity." (Hefele, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 385.) Justinian takes note of this in his Novella 131, as he refers to canons adopted and confirmed by the first four general councils, which are now denominated "laws." He doubtless meant to enforce the canons of all the councils in the ancient collection as current in his day, up to and including Chalcedon. Thus, by incorporation into the imperial code, they were given the force and validity of civil law, and their infraction became a crime against the state.

My previous statements do not diverge from Froom in this particular instance. In post #580, I recognized that the “holy canons” spoken of by Justinian in that 530AD law were the Apostolic canons adopted to form church government, and that they represented a “particular set of laws”. This concept of a “particular set” of canon laws corresponds with Froom’s recognition that Chalcedon enforced “many” canons from a number of lesser synods dating back to the 1stCentury, that Chalcedon enforced the “provisions of certain local synods”, and that Justinian incorporated the “body of canon law recognized in the church”. I have no disagreement with any of that; the canons Justinian mentioned in his 530AD legislation and what he enacted in Novel 131 in 545AD came from the four previous ecumenical councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon), from the “lesser synod” canons Chalcedon had authorized, and other “certain local synods” from previous centuries. This constituted the body of canon law, the “ancient collection as current in his day, up to and including Chalcedon”.

My disagreement with you, Lysimachus, comes from your claim that a decree from the Council of Orleans in 538AD “compelling the consciences of men” was given full jurisdiction through Justinian’s Code. In post #329, you equated the canons of Orleans III with the “canons of the synods”, meaning the “holy synods” mentioned in Justinian’s 530AD law. You inferred that, because Justinian gave “Church law” full jurisdiction, then the canons of Orleans III, including the Sunday law, was also given full jurisdiction. But as I’ve labored to explain to you (and as Froom confirms), the body of canon law, or “holy canons” Justinian gave jurisdiction to were the ancient collection contained in the four ecumenical councils and the canons of some lesser synods mentioned in the Chalcedonic canons. Canons decreed in national synods in the 6th Century, like the ones held at Orleans, Carthage, etc., or provincial synods, or dioclesian synods, or any lesser synods not included in Chalcedon, where not a part of the body of canon law given full jurisdiction through Justinian’s Code. These other canons may have had their own local, provincial, or national authority, but they didn’t have jurisdiction throughout the entire Church.

Incidentally, how do you explain the notion that Justinian’s Code gave Church law full jurisdiction, in France, at the Synod of Orleans when Justinian never governed “France”? In the 6th Century, Gaul was the possession of the Merovingian Franks, and although nominally Catholic, they had long since shaken off any pretenses of being Roman foederati. The Frankish kings had their own laws and were not subject to the Byzantine emperors’ jurisprudence.

Lysimachus said:
III. Imperial Provision of 533 Fully Operative in 538 for Pope
The full enthronement of the bishop of Rome in the church and the Catholic empire could hardly be recognized as an accomplished fact while so much of the West was under the domination of Arians, until Justinian's armies in Africa and Italy overthrew the Vandal kingdom and broke the power of the Ostrogoths at the raising of the siege of Rome.

Arians and pagans would continue to dominate the West, in Italy and in Rome, long after the siege in 538AD, and into the 7th Century. And unlike the tolerant Ostrogoths who facilitated the growth of the Catholic Church, the Lombards heavily persecuted the Catholic population at the onset of their occupation, and threatened the pope at times even after their conversion. So if the “full enthronement of the bishop of Rome” (whatever that means) was not an accomplished fact while so much of the West was under Arian dominion, the pope would have to wait long after 538AD for the West, and Italy, to be cleared of those heretics.

"A pagan people took possession of Britain; Arian kings seized the greater part of the remaining West; while the Lombards, long attached to Arianism, and as neighbors most dangerous and hostile, established a powerful sovereignty before the very gates of Rome."
(History of the Popes, Leopold Ranke, Vol. I, p. 130, Para. 3.)

“On the death of Pope John III in 573, Rome was so closely pressed that it was impossible to send to Constantinople for the confirmation of Benedict I, who had been elected his successor, and the papal throne remained vacant during a year. The same appears to have been the case on the death of Benedict in 578, when Rome was held in siege by Zoto, duke of Beneventum, for the Lombard power had been distributed among thirty-six duchies.”
(A History of the City of Rome, Thomas Henry Dyer, pg.343-344)

Lysimachus said:
And not until the Goths were driven from Rome in 538 was the bishop of Rome released from Gothic encirclement and control. [FOOTNOTE 9] {1950 LEF, PFF1 935.1}

Only to then be encircled and controlled by Byzantium, which turned out to be far more of an impediment to the papacy’s actual growth than Goths had ever been.

NumberOneSon · Jan 10, 2011

Lysimachus said:
Footnote 9:
In March, 537, Bishop Silverius of Rome, elected by the influence of the Goths, was deposed by Belisarius, upon false charges of plotting with the Goths, and on March 29, 537. the court favorite, Vigilius, was elevated to the Papacy. (Diehl, "Justinian's Government, The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 2, p. 46.)

This is the second time Diehl has been misrepresented on this thread, which leads me to believe that you may not be reading all of the sources used in your posts. He didn’t say Vigilius was the “court favorite”; he said Vigilius was Theodora’s favorite. It’s an important distinction because it is sometimes claimed by Adventists/historicists that Justinian put Vigilius on the papal throne, when in fact he didn’t have anything to do with it; he later became convinced of Silverius’ innocence and attempted to send the disgraced bishop back to Italy for a retrial. It was really the secret machinations of Theodora who sought to install Vigilius because of assurances that he would push for the restoration of the deposed patriarch Anthimus.

“At that time Vigilius, the deacon, was delegate to Constantinople. And the empress was vexed for the patriarch Anthemus, because he had been deposed by the most holy pope Agapetus, who had found him to be a heretic and had appointed Menas, the servant of God, in his stead. So Augustus (Theodora) took counsel with Vigilius, the deacon, and sent a letter to Rome to Pope Silverius with the request: ‘Be not slow to come to us or else fail not to restore Anthemius to his place’. And when the blessed Silverius read the letter he groaned and said, ‘Now I know that this affair has put an end to my life’. But the most blessed Silverius had trust in God and in blessed Peter, the apostle, and he wrote to the empress: ‘Lady Augusta, I will never do this thing, to recall a heretic condemned in his iniquity’. Then Augusta was wroth and she sent instructions to Belisarius, the patrician, by Vigilius the deacon, as follows: ‘Find some occasion to accuse Pope Silverius and depose him from the bishopric or else send him surely and speedily to us. See, you have with you Vigilius, the archdeacon and legate, our well beloved, who has promised us to restore the patriarch Anthemus’.”
(Liber Pontificalis, Vol. I, pg. 150)

Lysimachus said:
Some reckon Vigilius' pontificate from 538 because they regard his rule as invalid as long as Silverius lived.

I believe the reason why certain writers (like Phillip Schaff) insisted that Vigilius’ pontificate began in 538AD was because of an erroneous theory invented around the late Renaissance period that Vigilius resigned as pope at the death of Silverius until another election was held in order to reestablish his legitimacy.

However, there is no historical evidence for such an event, and no contemporary chronicler made mention of it. The Liber Pontificalis lists the date of Vigilius’ episcopacy in the year 537AD, and his entry was written in the 6th Century. The historian Procopius was in Rome with Belisarius during the Ostrogothic siege and he recorded that Vigilius’ pontificate began soon after Silverius’ deposition and during the siege. W.H. Hutton even stated that Vigilius appeared on a June 537AD inscription as "beatissimus papa".

So “some” may reckon his pontificate from 538, but they really don’t have any legitimate basis for doing so.

“Baronius, Binius, and Ferrandus, tell us, that, upon the death of Silverius, Vigilius resigned the dignity he had usurped, and would not resume it, being conscious to himself of the nullity of his former election, till he was elected anew. But of this resignation, and the new election, not the least notice is taken, nor so much as a distant hint given, by any of the contemporary writers; they only produce Anastasius, saying, that the see of Silverius was vacant six days; which, they say, could not be while Silverius was alive; for he was lawful pope so long as he lived: therefore after his death Vigilius resigned, and was chosen anew. But Anastasius speaks of the vacancy, that happened after ‘Silverius had sat one year, five months and eleven days,’ and consequently of the vacancy that ensued upon his expulsion…Vigilius was therefore, in all likelihood, chosen the very next day, the 19th of November, and ordained on the 22nd of the same month, which is 537, fell on a Sunday, the day on which bishops, especially those of Rome, were then commonly ordained. That Anastatius speaks of this vacancy, is owned even by most of the Roman Catholic writers, and, among the rest, by the two learned critics Papebroke and Pagi, who therefore reject the whole story of the resignation and new election of Vigilius, not only as a mere fable, or a dream, but as quite unnecessary; the want of a canonical election being sufficiently supplied, according to them, by the consent and reception of the people and clergy of Rome, nay, of the whole church, receiving and acknowledging Vigilius for lawful pope.”
(The History of the Popes, Archibald Bower, Vol. I, pg. 349-350)

“It was at one time customary for papal historians to declare that Vigilius, till the death of Silverius, was but an antipope, and became legitimate only at the death of his predecessor. No such distinction was then recognized. The Roman clergy accepted him from his consecration. In June, 537, he appears on an inscription as "beatissimus papa."
(The Church of the Sixth Century, W.H. Hutton, pg 102-103)

Lysimachus said:
The year-by-year outline of events may be summarized as follows:

<snip>

538 (March)—Another Roman army landing in Italy, Witiges in despair abandons the siege of Rome, falling back to Ravenna. ( 373, 375, 377.) 553—Defeat of Teias (Theia) and end of the Ostrogothic war. ( 419. The 18-year war began at the end of 535. (See book 5, chap. 5, vol. 3, p. 47.))

Seems a bit truncated to me. Allow me to add some perspective using a summary based on the accounts of Procopius, Hodgkin, and Browning:

538 - Goths at Petra surrender to Romans (most are taken, some are left with a small garrison of Romans).

538 - Witigis’ besieges Rimini with his “whole army” (35,000 minus the 10,000 he had garrisoning cities).

538 - Belisarius advances by boat to Genoa, and marches by land to Ticinum and fought “numerous” Goths outside of the city. The Goths lose the battle but retain the city.

538 - Beliarius secures Milan and the area of Liguria without a fight. Witiges sends a “large army” with Uraias to retake Milan, and King Theudibert of the Franks, sends 10,000 Burgundians to help Uraias.

538 - The Gothic garrisons in Tudera and Clusium surrender to Belisarius, and he sends them to Sicily and Naples. While this is happening, Witiges sends another army under Vacimus to go against the Romans in the fortress of Ancon. Vacimus meets the forces of Conon in the field and the Goths rout the Romans, but the Romans retain the fortress.

538 - Narses arrives with an army of 5,000 (including 2,000 Heruli). He convinces Belisarius to relieve the siege of Rimini. Witiges’ Goths retreat northwards toward Ravenna.

539 – Uraias and Theudibert’s Burgundians besiege Milan. Belisarius dispatches forces under Martin and Uliaris, but neither one attempts an attack on the Goths. The city is taken by the besiegers, the walls raised, and tens of thousands are slain or given to the “Catholic” Burgundians as slaves. Belisarius reports to Justinian that the divided Byzantine command has paralyzed his military advances. Narses is recalled, and Belisarius is made commander in chief.

539 – Witiges seeks an alliance with the Persian king, Chosroes, hoping the Persians will stir up hostilities against Byzantium in order to divide Justinian’s attention. Justinian receives rumors of Witiges’ envoy, and offers to negotiate a truce with the Goths, offering them all Italian territory north of the Po River. Belisarius refuses to obey his emperor and ratify the agreement.

539 – A large Gothic army under Uraias meet Byzantine forces at Pavia, but neither side engages. A hundred thousand Franks led by Theudibert pour in from the North and rout both Goth and Byzantine armies, but the Franks retreat after a time for lack of provisions and the onset of disease.

539 – Belisarius blockades Osimo. The Goths request aid from Witiges, but he refuses to send reinforcements. After 7 months, the Osimo garrison surrenders.

540- Belisarius lays siege to Ravenna. Theudibert offers an alliance with the Goths in exchange for a shared division of Italian land. Witiges rejects the offer out of distrust.

540 – Uraias’ men desert for fear of their families’ lives. Uraias garrisons Verona.

540 – Justinian again offers a negotiated truce with the Goths, and this time Belisarius agrees to ratify the treaty, but the Goths offer a counter-proposal before learning about Justinian’s renewed treaty; they agree to surrender Ravenna if Belisarius becomes their new emperor of the West. Belisarius feigns agreement, enters the city, but refuses to become the new Caesar and declares the city for Justinian. Most of the northern Gothic cities surrender once news of Belisarius’ duplicity is discovered; however the Gothic garrisons at Verona and Pavia, under Uraias and Ildebald, refuse to acknowledge imperial sovereignty.

Second half of the War
540 – Uraias does not accept Gothic kingship; Ildebald given the crown.
540 – Ildebald defeats Vitalis’ forces at Treviso and subdues all of Venetia,regaining all of Italy north of the Po River by years end.
541 – Ildebald assassinated. Eraric the Rugian becomes King of the Ostrogoths. He is assassinated 5 months later and replaced by Totila.
542 - Totila’s force of 5,000 men defeats Constantianus’ 12,000 (Gibbon says 20,000) near Faventia .
542 - Totila’s forces defeat John near Micole. Most of the prisoners join Totila.
543 - Totila’s forces take all of Tuscany, Campania, and Samnium. He besieges Naples.
543 - Totila’s navy defeat’s Demetrius’ fleet off the coast of Naples, sinking or taking every ship.
543 - Totila destroys Maximinus’ naval fleet.
543/544 - Totila takes Naples.
544/545 - Totila takes Picenum and Aemilia.
545 – Constantianus and the other officers write Justinian that with the number of troops in Italy it would be impossible to defeat Totila.
544 - Mass desertions of Illyrian troops after news of Bulgar attaks in Illyria (544AD), leaving the Byzantine general Vitalis without an army.
545 - Totila clears out all Byzantine garrisons behind him and besieges Rome.
546 - Totila takes Rome.
547 - Totila and 10,000 men march on Lucania and attack John’s camp. A hundred are killed. Belisarius’ sails to Sicily, but Totila’s men surprise his camp and destroy it. Totila besieges Rossano; the city surrenders.
549 - Totila ravages the coastal cities of Dalmatia, and again besieges Rome.
549/550 - Totila takes Rome. Holds sway over all of Italy except for Ravenna and a few coastal cities.
550 – Totila’s 400-ship navy besieges Rhegium and captures Tarentum.
550 - The Goths blockade Ancona. Totila loses four Sicilian fortresses to Artabanes, but captures Corsica and Sardinia.

Lysimachus said:
That the Ostrogoths did not perish as a nation until 552-555 is attested not only by history but by Ostrogothic coins in the British Museum and the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, where on the coinage of Baduila (Totila) and Teias the title "Rex" (king) appears. (FOOTNOTE 17)

Sure, I agree with that.

Lysimachus said:
Footnote 17:

After Belisarius drove the Ostrogoths away from Rome, they retired to Ravenna. Finally Ravenna opened its gates to Belisarius, and Witiges was seized and taken by Belisarius in triumph to Constantinople.

As my timeline showed, the Goths didn’t just retire to Ravenna after ending the Siege of Rome, but they engaged the Byzantines in numerous sieges and battles over the next 2 years. At times they were successful, at times they were not.

It’s important to recognize that the Goths did not open their gates to Belisarius because they were defeated; they were tricked into believing that Belisarius would renounce his allegiance to Justinian and become the new King of the Goths. Procopius admitted that in 540AD, the Goths were “still greatly superior to their opponents in number and power” and that the Byzantines were the “weaker army” (History of the Wars, Book VI). Heck, Justinian had already agreed to a treaty and was prepared to cede all of Northern Italy to the Ostrogoths.

Hodgkin confirmed that after the fall of Ravenna, the “mass” of Gothic soldiers South of the Po were told to “return to their own lands” (Italy and Her Invaders, Vol. VI, pg. 379), which means that the capture of Ravenna only dispersed the Gothic army temporarily.

NumberOneSon · Jan 10, 2011

(CONT.)

Lysimachus said:
Nevertheless, the Ostrogoths continued to function as a kingdom under Baduila (541-552) and Teias (552-553), who perished in 553 in the battle of Mons Lactarius, when the imperialists crushed the Ostrogothic host. Thenceforth the coins of Justinian began to be minted in Ravenna. The Ostrogoths had been plucked up. (Warwick Wroth. Catalogue of the Coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths and Lombards, pp. xxxv-xxxix, xlii, xlviii, and, for complete descriptions of the Ostrogothic coins of this period and illustrative plates, pp. 77-97

I agree with that completely; the Gothic kingdom perished by 553AD. Totila not only minted coins, but he recalled the Roman Senate, refurbished the Roman Library as well as the city, raised a 400 ship navy, and celebrated games at the Circus Maximus. For a period of a few years he was indeed the master of Rome.

Lysimachus said:
That events centering about the siege of Rome (March, 537-March, 538) were a turning point in church and state is evidenced by such statements as the following: {1950 LEF, PFF1 936.1}

"With the conquest of Rome by Belisarius the history of the ancient city may be considered as terminating; and with his defense against Witiges [538] commences the history of the Middle Ages—of the times of destruction and of change." (Finlay, op. cit., p. 240. See also the citation of Bemont and Monod on page 516.)

Finlay believed the end of Rome’s siege was the catalyst for the Middle Ages, which is fine; there are any number of opinions as to the start date for the Middle Ages. Some historians point to the 5th Century, others to the 6th Century. But where in the reference does Finlay say that the end of the siege was a turning point in the “church and state”. He mentions nothing about that in the quote. If anything, all of the historians I have read who address the status of the papacy and the Roman Church during Justinian’s Reconquista state that it was a period marked by the decreased power and authority of the papacy in the West, and the pontificates of Vigilius and Pelagius I certainly seem to bear that out.

Lysimachus said:
Thus as the hampering Goths were swept away from Rome in 538 by the arms of Justinian, there was inaugurated a new era of legalized ecclesiastical supremacy of the popes, as they became increasingly not only heads of the church, but "men of the state," and eventually "rulers of the state." And this turning point in the time of Justinian, with the key dates 533 and 538, was many centuries later to be pointed to as the beginning of an important prophetic period, as is covered in Volume II.

At the turn of the Century you can see the germination of the papacy’s potential through the reign of Gregory the Great, but his accomplishments were created out of hardships caused by the Lombard occupation of Italy and the weakened Byzantine control that resulted from it; The change in the papacy wasn’t due to any “legalized ecclesiastical supremacy” from Justinian’s Code or the events surrounding 538AD. If anything, the Byzantine re-conquest of Italy inaugurated a new era of crippling papal subjugation by the East that led to the Bishop of Rome’s degraded authority throughout the West. Read the history surrounding popes Vigilius, Pelagius I, the Three Chapters Controversy, the 2nd Council of Constantinople, and the Istrian Schism, and then show me specifically how that period inaugurated a new era of papal supremacy, headship, or statesmanship.

Again, you’re statement quoted above is based on the reference from Belmont and Monod, and I already showed you in post #533 that their reason for picking Vigilius’ pontificate as a starting point was based on incorrect and inaccurate information. I also said that if you’re going to claim that Vigilius marked a change in the papacy’s character then you should have no problem providing examples of this increased involvement in worldly events during his reign, examples that showed a change in the papacy’s character. Shall I be waiting in vain?

Lysimachus said:
Thus Thus Justinian not only codified the religious laws of his predecessors but also specifically designated the bishop of Rome the head of the church and corrector of heretics, and made the canon law of the church up to 451 part of the civil law of the empire, thus consummating the union of church and state."

(Froom, Prophetic Faith, Vol. 1, pp. 935,936)

Justinian did not “specifically designate” the bishop of Rome as the head of the church, as if it was even a question at that point. As I showed you in post #532, Justinian and the previous Emperor, Justin, had openly acknowledged papal primacy 19 years earlier and had embodied it in an imperial decree in 519AD. Justinian had also recognized the Bishop of Rome as “Supreme Pastor” in a letter to Pope Hormisdas in 520AD. So the introduction in Justinian’s 533AD letter to Pope John II and his subsequent legislation was only mirroring what had already been previously decreed. Remember, John’s response was incorporated into the same code, and it stated that the papacy’s headship was originally asserted by the “statutes of the emperors”, and that Justinian’s letter only “attested” to what had already been established.

And Lysimachus, Justinian’s legislation never designated the Bishop of Rome as “corrector of heretics”. Nowhere is that stated in the Code.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Lysimachus · Jan 10, 2011

Acts 6:5,

So are you saying that there is absolutely no validity whatsoever for a 538 starting date?

Are you Historicist? Or Futurist? I really wish people would provide me their alternative views instead of only trashing other views. What is your view?

I still hold to the 538 A.D. date, even if the decree was not important like you say. Why? The historians I cited (which you ignored) recognized that the removal of the Gothic impediment in Rome was the commencement of the Middle Ages.

Yes, while it is true that there were still significant Arian powers ruling, 538 was the "beginning point"...more like "the beginning of the end" toward the decline of the Arian powers, and the steady climb of the Papacy. So all your historical markings after 538 really do not mean much to me, as nobody has suggested that the war was over. Yet historians recognize that in 538, the major blockade in preventing the Papacy from climbing was broken down, and from that point on, it was a more-or-less, slow, but steady climb.

That is the whole point you are missing.

I'll hand it to you Acts 6:5 that you do seem to know your history. I have a hard time following you in understanding what your arguments really are. I see a lot of words, and history, but I'm not digesting your points, and the significance of those points.

Also, I never once said that the 538 A.D. date is "dependent" on the decree I mentioned, compelling the consicences of men. I intended to mean that it was another "playing factor" in enhancing the validity of the 538 A.D. date.

I'm going to be purchasing Heidi Heiks' book "538 Source Book" (350 pages long), and after I study that I'll get back to you.

But please do answer my question. Are you a Historicist? A Futurist? Or a Preterist?

If I remember correctly, you mentioned somewhere that you prefer 553 as the starting date. If this is true then, may I ask how on earth this destroys Adventist doctrine that the Papacy is the Antichrist? Whether it starts in 553 or 538, it means absolutely nothing. Please do keep in mind that the Catholic Church admits that their reign was roughly "more than twelve hundred years".

Look:

The 1260 years of Papal Supremacy

So it appears that whether you wish to start in 538 or not, the reign of the Papacy fits the Biblical description of 1260 years.

Keep in mind that I have proven Biblically that, in order to be consistent, we must interpret the 42 months symbolically, not only because it is couched in symbols, but because a normal way to say 3 and a half years in scripture is "three years and six months". But even if you wish to dismiss this argument, there is still plenty more to chew on. Another is that 70 weeks = 490 years, and as Professor Hardy has already proven, the Hebrew word for Shabaum can only be translated "weeks", and not "sevens". So we see the day-year-principle being employed on the 70 weeks.

There is only one time-slot in history where the 1260 years can fit. And that is during the reign of the Papacy. So I really see no need in mustering so much energy as you have to try and destroy the 538 A.D.

I truly believe it is a waste of time.

Keep in mind that the main thrust of my entire post was not to prove the 538 A.D. date as the starting date, but that a number of Protestants recognized this date as the significant starting point for the Prophetic 1260 day prophecy of Papal reign, long before Adventists came on the scene. That was my main point. But here you come with your massive post trying to refute that which was not even my intent. I believe these Protestant men were lead of God, and I believe it was a solid foundation for which Adventism was built upon.

NumberOneSon · Jan 11, 2011

Lysimachus said:
Acts 6:5,

So are you saying that there is absolutely no validity whatsoever for a 538 starting date?

Honestly, I don’t see anything in the historical record that points to 538AD being the date that altered the fortunes of the medieval papacy. The Bishop of Rome’s temporal authority did not begin in that year, the era of Justinian was a period of marked decline in papal power and authority in both the East and West, the papacy’s ability to persecute did not originate in 538AD or with Justinian’s legislation, the Ostrogoths still ruled Rome and Italy after that date, and another Arian tribe (the Lombards) invaded the peninsula 30 years later and actively persecuted the Catholic Church, whereas the Ostrogoths had not. Where in any of that do you find validity for a 538AD starting date other than adding 538 + 1260 = 1798 (and 1798 was certainly not the first time that the Roman See was held captive, stripped of its authority, or a replaced by a Roman Republic).

Lysimachus said:
Are you Historicist? Or Futurist? I really wish people would provide me their alternative views instead of only trashing other views. What is your view?

I’d probably view myself as a Partial Preterist.

Lysimachus said:
I still hold to the 538 A.D. date, even if the decree was not important like you say. Why? The historians I cited (which you ignored) recognized that the removal of the Gothic impediment in Rome was the commencement of the Middle Ages.

I didn’t ignore your references. The quote from Young was in post #611, and I haven’t gotten to that yet. I did address the Finlay quote, and pointed out that there is no right or wrong opinion as to the start date of the Middle Ages; again, its all a matter of opinion since there was no literal, historical event called “the Middle Ages”. The historian who helped establish the term, Bruni, considered 476AD to be the start of the Middle Ages, and the same is true concerning the term “the Dark Ages”; all other dates spring from that 5th-Century foundation.

But as I pointed out in my last post, you used Finlay to prove that the siege of Rome was a turning point in church and state, and yet that subject is not addressed in the quote. Marking the transition between old Imperial Rome and the Rome of the Middle Ages is a separate issue from the birth of papal supremacy. What you should be providing is an historian stating that the end of the Siege of Rome was the birth of the medieval papacy.

Lysimachus said:
Yes, while it is true that there were still significant Arian powers ruling, 538 was the "beginning point"...more like "the beginning of the end" toward the decline of the Arian powers, and the steady climb of the Papacy.

But how do you know this? Have you studied the 6th Century papacy in order to determine if it rose or declined in the wake of 538AD? Again, every historian I’ve read on the issue, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof, all agree that the era following imperial “liberation” was a step backward in papal authority; and there is nothing in my reading of 6th Century papal history leading me to believe that the years following 538AD began the steady climb of papal power.

Lysimachus said:
So all your historical markings after 538 really do not mean much to me, as nobody has suggested that the war was over. Yet historians recognize that in 538, the major blockade in preventing the Papacy from climbing was broken down, and from that point on, it was a more-or-less, slow, but steady climb. That is the whole point you are missing.

If what you are saying is true then post a quote from one of the historians who recognized the Ostrogoths as a “major blockade” preventing the Papacy from its upward climb, and that from 538AD on the papacy began its slow rise. I mean you’re telling me historians recognize this, so you obviously know of various references that mirror your statement. Please present one of them so we can discuss it.

Lysimachus said:
I'll hand it to you Acts 6:5 that you do seem to know your history. I have a hard time following you in understanding what your arguments really are. I see a lot of words, and history, but I'm not digesting your points, and the significance of those points.

I admit that my explanation on the canons was a bit wordy.

Lysimachus said:
Also, I never once said that the 538 A.D. date is "dependent" on the decree I mentioned, compelling the consicences of men. I intended to mean that it was another "playing factor" in enhancing the validity of the 538 A.D. date.

Well, you did in fact say “it has been proven that the commencement the 1260 years at 538 is dependent on a decree compelling the consciences of men”, and you can go back to your first paragraph in post #329 and see what you wrote for yourself. However, if that wasn’t your intended meaning, then I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it. But since I proved to you that the canons of Orleans III were not ecumenical and only constituted "local" law, do you recognize that they are no longer a "playing factor"?

Lysimachus said:
I'm going to be purchasing Heidi Heiks' book "538 Source Book" (350 pages long), and after I study that I'll get back to you.

Now wait a minute; in post #610 you said “if I were you, I would purchase Heidi Heiks' full book”, and yet you, yourself, haven’t purchased it yet?

Lysimachus said:
If I remember correctly, you mentioned somewhere that you prefer 553 as the starting date. If this is true then, may I ask how on earth this destroys Adventist doctrine that the Papacy is the Antichrist? Whether it starts in 553 or 538, it means absolutely nothing.

I said the pontificate of Gregory the Great is what I would consider as the most viable start date for the medieval papacy’s rise; the 553AD date was in reference to the end of the Ostrogothic kingdom.

Lysimachus said:
Please do keep in mind that the Catholic Church admits that their reign was roughly "more than twelve hundred years".

Look:

The 1260 years of Papal Supremacy

So it appears that whether you wish to start in 538 or not, the reign of the Papacy fits the Biblical description of 1260 years.

Ah yes, Michael Scheifler. BrightCandle posted that link about a year or so ago, although it looks like two more entries have been added since.

The Best and Hughes quotes place the beginning of the papal government sometime within the 7th Century.

William Cobbett mentioned 1200 years of the papacy, but the time period he was referring to in his book was the 4th thru 16th Centuries, from the time of Constantine up to the Protestant Reformation. By 1798, it would have reigned for over 1400 years.

Manning, a Catholic, claimed “for twelve hundred years the Bishops of Rome have reigned as temporal princes”. He penned that in 1865, and placed the “establishment” of the Pope’s temporal power during the reign of Gregory the Great at the end of the 6th Century, completely bypassing Justinia's era. Manning viewed 1200 years of papal power from Gregory’s reign up to his present time, and ignoring the French Revolution in his calculations. Manning also mentioned that the pope had been a true and proper sovereign for 1500 years, from the hour of Constantine's "banishment" into the East, and that the 1200-year time frame was to "speak within limit" of that sovereignty (it's good to see that Scheifler was at least willing to show the 1500-year time frame too, otherwise he'd be guilty of quote mining). So Manning placed the hour of the pope's sovereignty during the reign of Constantine (as Cobett did).

I guess Scheifler's purpose in quoting Pius XII was to suggest that the "decree of Divine Providence" was Justinian's 533AD letter. That wasn’t inferred anywhere in the passage; in fact, the main point of that particular essay was to express the fact that the papacy acquired it's civil authority only when it was not subject to another temporal power, and Justinian’s re-conquest of Italy definitely represented the height of civil interference in those early centuries.

So some of the references had the papacy reigning for more than 1400 years, some saw the papacy beginning to reign in the 7th Century, and none of them placed any significance in the 6th Century or 538AD. Don’t you find that interesting?

Lysimachus said:
There is only one time-slot in history where the 1260 years can fit. And that is during the reign of the Papacy. So I really see no need in mustering so much energy as you have to try and destroy the 538 A.D.

Well, that’s certainly your opinion.

Lysimachus said:
Keep in mind that the main thrust of my entire post was not to prove the 538 A.D. date as the starting date, but that a number of Protestants recognized this date as the significant starting point for the Prophetic 1260 day prophecy of Papal reign, long before Adventists came on the scene. That was my main point.

And in my first post to you I acknowledged that. But some of the content in your 4-post series was used to validate the 538AD interpretation, and I felt like discussing it.

Lysimachus said:
But here you come with your massive post trying to refute that which was not even my intent

My posts addressed the subject matter presented in your posts. And as far as massive posts are concerned, pot meet kettle, lol.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Lysimachus · Jan 11, 2011

Honestly, I don’t see anything in the historical record that points to 538AD being the date that altered the fortunes of the medieval papacy. The Bishop of Rome’s temporal authority did not begin in that year, the era of Justinian was a period of marked decline in papal power and authority in both the East and West, the papacy’s ability to persecute did not originate in 538AD or with Justinian’s legislation, the Ostrogoths still ruled Rome and Italy after that date, and another Arian tribe (the Lombards) invaded the peninsula 30 years later and actively persecuted the Catholic Church, whereas the Ostrogoths had not. Where in any of that do you find validity for a 538AD starting date other than adding 538 + 1260 = 1798 (and 1798 was certainly not the first time that the Roman See was held captive, stripped of its authority, or a replaced by a Roman Republic).

I will confess that my views have somewhat evolved since I wrote that article, and were evolving while I was writing over the last couple years. Therefore, upon review, I find some inconsistencies. Once again, my main purpose of the article was to establish that Adventists were not the originators of these dates. As for the historical validities, you will need to give me sufficient time to continue editing/polishing my article, and then you will understand that the 538 A.D. date does not hinge on the removal of the Gothic impediment, or Pope being declared the "head of all the churches", nor the Pope being taken captive in 1798. None of these are the primary reasons for which make these dates significant, although I do believe they provide some pegs to make the dates stand out more. It will take a long time to document the information, but I can guarantee you, once the data is finished being compiled, you will see just why we Adventists have solid reasons to recognize these dates as significant in prophetic history.

Well, you did in fact say “it has been proven that the commencement the 1260 years at 538 is dependent on a decree compelling the consciences of men”, and you can go back to your first paragraph in post #329 and see what you wrote for yourself. However, if that wasn’t your intended meaning, then I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it. But since I proved to you that the canons of Orleans III were not ecumenical and only constituted "local" law, do you recognize that they are no longer a "playing factor"?

It's a bit more complex than that, but apparently I did not word it well. I will do more research on the canons of Orleans III on whether they were ecumenical or not and whether they only constituted "local" law before I admit anything. I have contacted some experts in this field, and they reviewed your material. They have assured me that you can most certainly be proven wrong on your understanding of the full nature and import of these canons. Words cannot describe just how much immense research has been put into the import of the 538 and 1798 dates, so therefore it can be difficult to present all the data in its full glory on forums like this, especially when we are only limited to 15,000 letters per post.

Is there a way to increase the amount of letters per post?

LittleLambofJesus · Jan 11, 2011

Lysimachus said:
*snip*
I will confess that my views have somewhat evolved since I wrote that article, and were evolving while I was writing over the last couple years.
Therefore, upon review, I find some inconsistencies. Once again, my main purpose of the article was to establish that Adventists were not the originators of these dates....

We are all learning and evolving here

Forbes lists the Pope of Rome as the 5th most powerful person in the world in 2010.

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Jesus - that's my final answer

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

Jesus - that's my final answer

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

from scratch

Guest

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Jesus - that's my final answer

from scratch

Guest

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Similar threads