Day-for-a-year in prophecy question

RC_NewProtestants · Mar 2, 2007

The point is that their power was weakened to the point where they were not a major threat anymore.

Of course the Ostrogoths were just one of many tribes that threatened the Roman terrortory before and after they moved the capital to the East. If you read about Justinian you would know that he did not take orders from the Pope. Justinian had his own idea of who should be pope and desposed a pope and put his own in.

All this happened on the eve of Belisarius' invasion of Italy and Justinian may have had strategic reasons for wanting to keep the pope on his side. But when Agapetus died shortly after consecrating a successor to Anthimus, Theodora, apparently with Justinian's support, plotted to have elected as the next pope Vigilius, a deacon who had come to Constantinople with Agapetus and promised flexibility. But before Vigilius could return to Rome, a new pope, Silverius, the son of Pope Hormisdas, had been chosen with Theodahad's backing. However, during the one year and nine day siege of Rome by the Goths, Silverius was deposed by Belisarius and Antonina at Theodora's behest and replaced by Vigilius. Thus it was Vigilius who represented Rome and Catholicism during the 'Three Chapters' dispute.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/justinia.htm

But that really did not cause them to get along even with his own guy as pope. Justinian did set an example which was followed for quite a while where the Emperors actually decided who was going to be pope.

Justinian had his way in the end, but Vigilius did not give up the fight until February 554 when at last he anathematized the 'Three Chapters'. By then he was a sick man and he died on his way back to Rome, where his body was refused interment in St. Peter's basilica. As his successor Justinian chose the papal nuncio Pelagius who had vigorously defended the 'Three Chapters' while the dispute was raging, but, now that he was offered the papal throne on condition that he accept the condemnation, he accepted. The Roman populace was hostile, but Narses and his troops maintained firm control and Pelagius was ordained by two bishops and a presbyter, for the usual compliment of three bishops could not be mustered. Little by little Pelagius won acceptance in Italy south of the Po River, though Italy north of the Po remained hostile until the Lombard invasion made unity seem more essential.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/justinia.htm

djconklin · Mar 2, 2007

Of course the Ostrogoths were just one of many tribes that threatened the Roman terrortory before and after they moved the capital to the East.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogoths for more info about the Ostrogoths. Note that in 520 the king of the Ostrogoth's (Theodoric) gained support from the RCC church by "appeasing the pope."

If you read about Justinian you would know that he did not take orders from the Pope.

Who said he had to?

Jon0388g · Mar 2, 2007

tall73 said:
What exactly happened that we know from common sense in 1844? The view of the judgment depends on the interpretation itself. There was no earthly evidence other than the movement which started because of the interpretation.

Have you seen the list of headlining events which took place in 1844 on earth? I can't remember which website I saw it, but I do know that quite a few things came out of that year - Darwin's Theory being one of them. Looking at the list seems as though the devil was hard at work in that year...I'll try and find it again.

tall73 said:
This is a pretty good argument. To flesh it out you need to post the direct parallels to the 2300 days, the 70 weeks, etc. in chapter 11.

Part of this depends on whether you take the 2300 days to be the whole vision or the parts specifically listed. Shea addresses that too, and when I get to that point I will put my arguments.

Here's the drawback - History definately isn't my strongpoint. I find it incredibly boring.

However, seeing as in chapter 11:2, three more kings were said to be arising, and then comes a mighty king of Greece, ruling with 'great authority' - we know that the vision of the 2300 days must pertain at least from the time of the ram to the 'latter reign' of the Grecian kingdom. This, coupled with the fact that through chapter 11 the full history of conflicts of Greece/Rome are described in terms of years, is pretty weighty evidence.

Jon

RC_NewProtestants · Mar 2, 2007

Darwin was working on his theory in 1844 but it did not come out till 1859.

"When on board H.M.S. Beagle as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the organic beings inhabiting South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts, as will be seen in the latter chapters of this volume, seemed to throw some light on the origin of species- that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question by patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it. After five years' work I allowed myself to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes; these I enlarged in 1844 into a sketch of the conclusions, which then seemed to me probable: from that period to the present day I have steadily pursued the same object. I hope that I may be excused for entering on these personal details, as I give them to show that I have not been hasty in coming to a decision." (Darwin's opening paragraph to The Origin of Species, 1859.)

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Darwin.htm

For those who hold to the 2300 years prophecy what was supposed to be happening in those years that equated to the trampling of the sanctuary mentioned in Daniel?

djconklin · Mar 2, 2007

Originally Posted by tall73

What exactly happened that we know from common sense in 1844?

Where'd that rule come from?

djconklin · Mar 2, 2007

For those who hold to the 2300 years prophecy what was supposed to be happening in those years that equated to the trampling of the sanctuary mentioned in Daniel?

It isn't that sanctuary that is trampled.

Daniel 8:13
Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

This is a good example of how people go wrong in understanding Scripture: they either don't read the text for what it does say, or they read things into the text that aren't there.

RC_NewProtestants · Mar 2, 2007

both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

I wrote: "trampling of the sanctuary mentioned in Daniel"

Can you deal with a question instead of dancing around it?

djconklin · Mar 2, 2007

I wasn't "dancing" around it. Why do you feel the need to impute motives that don't exist?
Daniel 8:13 (New International Version)

Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"

RC_NewProtestants · Mar 2, 2007

Very well I can only conclude you don't even know what you are talking about. Clearly you can't express yourself adequately so maybe someone else can tell me what you are trying to say, I doubt it though.

djconklin · Mar 2, 2007

The text is quite clear.

tall73 · Mar 2, 2007

djconklin said:
[/i]

Where'd that rule come from?

It is not a rule at all, but Cliff was mentioning common sense fulfillments as a guide. I just don't see one in regard to 1844 that common sense would readily pick up on. It has to come from the text, etc. not an outwardly observable event.

djconklin · Mar 3, 2007

It is not a rule at all, but Cliff was mentioning common sense fulfillments as a guide.

And why should we use "common sense" (which isn't common at all) as a guide?

It has to come from the text, etc. not an outwardly observable event.

I would agree. We can only work with what we have vs. making things up as we go along like some people do.

djconklin · Jul 12, 2007

Day in the Bible

Purge your mind of everything you know or think you know. We are going back to the beginning. You are going to hear words used for almost literally the first time. From what you are given in the text you have to figure out what the word "day" means. We are not going to look at all 2,619 uses in 2,265 verses.

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Right off in the Bible we have two definitions for the one word "day." In the Hebrew both uses use the same word "yom." Just like we use the word "day" to refer to both and hardly anyone gets confused.

We all know of someone who tries to show off their intellectual prowess by paying attention to the finer points. While all the while they are missing the big picture. In this case, some people are being deliberately obtuse when they claim they don’t know that the word "day" can be used in some cases as a "year."

Day-for-a-year in prophecy question

Senior Veteran

Moderate SDA

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Moderate SDA

Moderate SDA

Senior Veteran

Moderate SDA

Senior Veteran

Moderate SDA

Sophia7's husband

Moderate SDA

Moderate SDA

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency