lordimpaq,

Okay, I'm sorry - I shouldn't have been too forward with the 'lollypop' interjection. It's true that up until the resurrection, the disciples clearly observed the sabbath, as infact we read in Luke 23:55-56 -

"And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment."

Following that, after the church had been established, we read in Acts that Paul and his companions were accustomed to preaching and engaging the Jews on the sabbath in order to point them to Christ:

"But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. . . And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. . . And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." (Act 13:14, 42, 44).

"And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." (Act 16:13).

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures" (Act 17:2).

"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ." (Act 18:4-5).

The last reference shows that all the meetings and engagements Paul and his companions had on the sabbaths were not Christian gatherings for NT worship - they were more like evangelistic opportunities for him as occasion to persuade both Jews and Greeks that Jesus was the Christ. So, it would not be correct to draw the conclusion that Christians were still observing the Sabbath as stipulated in the OT for the Jews. That is why under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he cautioned that the Sabbath was only a shadow of things which find their reality and subtance in Christ, and we should not be judged on the basis of keeping the sabbath and a few other things in just the manner stipulated for the Jews (Col. 2:16-17).

To further strengthen this persuasion, please note that only the Jews were answerable to the Law - the Gentiles were not held accountable to the stipulations of the Law: "Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God" (Rom 2:17). When you carefully follow the sequence of this very interesting discussion in Romans, you can't miss the fact that Christians are not Jews, and therefore you cannot apply a Jewish Law to non-Jews in the Body of Christ. Here's the sequence -

First Sequence:

"Now we know that ^awhat things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law (that is, the Jews): that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. ^bTherefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now ^cthe righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference . . . Therefore we conclude that ^da man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Rom 3:19-22, 28)

Follow the sequence of the argument of the inspired apostle: the Law was never given to Gentiles (that is, non-Jews) to observe; and to hold Gentiles accountable to the Law is to subvert the grace provided in Christ. The Law was given only to the Jews: "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rom 9:4).
--------------------------------------------------------

For Christians who are in the Body of Christ, the scripture says:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (Rom 6:14). . . and that is because, "now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." (Rom 7:6). You should realise that in the Body of Christ, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). And that being so, we are not held accountable under the Law - For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Rom 10:4). This is the reason why the Bible exhorts that we can't be judged "in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Col. 2:16-17).

So, as you say, no one has the power to change God's authority. The question is, can anyone as such change God's authority of the New Testament? What we both need is a careful, time-spent, prayerful study of God's Word - and then the understanding becomes clear in the economy of His covenants, and we find there are no ambiguities there.

Blessings.

hi 4get me, you have been a marvellous person, bless u for that,

bear in mind that when we read the bible and meditate on it, we ought not to view the bible in literal sense

4get_me:


"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures" (Act 17:2).

"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ." (Act 18:4-5).

from Acts 17:2, Paul reasoned with them out of the scriptures, out of the scriptures here mean words out of the scripture, the American Standard Version says paul reasoned with them[b] from the[/b] scriptures. thus it confirms that he was there because it was a christian gathering, and using the scriptures on that day to convince them that Jesus is Lord.

also restrictions on who should keep the commandment will be lifted as the prophet isaiah mentioned in Isaiah 56:6
it says "Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, [b]every one [/b]that keeps the Sabbath from polluting it, and takes hold of my covenant;

you can see that in the end everyone would be made accountable as to whether one keeps the commandment or not, we can now deduce that jews and gentiles will be held accountable,

but 4get me, when our Lord says he has not come to abolish the law what does it mean to you, ?

I understand your persuasions about Acts 17:2. But read it in its context, and you'll understand that Paul wasn't discoursing with or engaging Christians on the Sabbath or in the synagogues. Rather, his audience were the Jews, as the context bears out in verse 1 - "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews". It was with these Jews at Thessalonica that Paul engaged in such a persuasive manner to convince them that Jesus was the Christ. He would hardly need to do this to people who were already Christians and were convinced that Jesus was actually the Christ. You will find the result in verse 4 where it says: "And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few."

So, it was with the Jews that the apostle reasoned with in order to convince them that Jesus is the Christ; which would clearly mean that the meeting was an evangelistic engagement and not a Christian gathering.

Reading the connecting verses in Isaiah 56:6-7 ~

"Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people."

It would be clear that the passage was not revealing or detailing New Testament spirituality, but rather what obtained under the dispensation of the Law. This is clear by mention of "their burnt offerings and their sacrifices" to be accepted upon the LORD's "altar". When you turn over to the NT, you'll find that the burnt offerings and sacrifices were confirmed to be under the economy of the OT, and were not a continuum for the NT -

(a) (Heb. 10:1, 5).
"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. . . Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."

(b) (Heb. 10:6-9)
"In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second."

Infact, the last verse is one of the reasons why I'm persuaded that the Mosaic Law does not hold for the NT Christian - God has taken it away in order to establish the new covenant ratified by the Blood of Christ - "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. 2:14). So, the covenant, burnt offerings and sacrifices we read of in Isaiah 56:6 are well suited to the Old Testament economy; and Isaiah could not have been detailing the new covenant. This again confirms that Isaiah's mention of the Sabbath was not to be applied to NT Christians, otherwise we would have had to apply the burnt offerings and sacrifices he spoke about in those verses.

As a rule, OT prophets were not given to understand NT details -

Eph. 3:3-5 --
"How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."

----------------------------------------

Now in Matt. 5:17 when Christ said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil", He was not thereby asking that Christians should live by the Law. Rather, He testified that He came to 'fulfil' them, in the sense that He would bring about the actual content of the Law, especially in reference to the prophetic nature of the Law in reference to Himself. This is why after His resurrection, He explained the import of what He meant in the fulifilling of the Law and the prophets -

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44).

His death and resurrection effectively fulfilled the Law, the prophets and the psalms - that is why the inspired writer of Hebrews argued from the same OT that God would take away the Law of the Old Covenant in order to establish the New Covenant in His Son - the One who came to do the Father's will and pleasure -

Heb 10:8-10
"Above when he said (that is, Jesus Christ prophetically declared this statement) Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

Notice that this declaration we find in Hebrews 10 is actually a quote from Psalm 40:6-8, which clearly point to the fact that Christ was prophetically speaking there, and had foreseen that God had not eternal satisfaction in the sacrifices and burnt offerings of the OT, such as Isaiah mentioned.

So, the Lord Jesus Christ actually fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, but not in a way as to ask Christians to revert to the OT to keep the Mosaic Law and the Sabbath. The reality of what pleases God is to be found in Jesus Christ, as the inspired apostle argued with great clarity in Col. 2:16-17.

Blessings.

4get me, u are one in a million, i've just copied your post and sent it to my friends,

cos i am a seventh day adventist and i really hold the sabbath dear,

i only hope they can see what i see,

Well, lordimpaq. . . thank you so very much for that challenge - and your efforts have really blessed me. I understand how difficult it is for some to see these things; but we can hold our friends very dear in prayer that they may come to see them as well someday. I offer you the apostle Paul's encouragement in patience when trying to persuade our loved ones:

¹⁴I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. ¹⁵Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. ¹⁶Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

            -- Phil. 3:14-16

such humility, God bless you

Many blessings be yours.

AMEN

Bobbyaf:

[color=#006600].

I would agree with one writer who said that we aught to worship God everyday, and that is very much true, but in all practicality, we can't keep everyday holy, can we? While we must live holy lives everyday, we must also be obedient enough to follow the Lord's command to keep HIS HOLY DAY. Jesus is very much still the Lord of the sabbath.

Isn't this a contradiction? With one breath you say it is not possible to keep everyday Holy and with another, you say it is.

Of course it is possible to keep everyday holy in all practicality. If it wasn't so, we would not be commanded to do so.

Of course we need to keep the sabbath day Holy. But it's important we know what day that is and how to keep that day holy. It is the day of the Church. The day of salvation. This is the day of the rest in Christ.

We must ensure that we are in that rest. We must believe the gospel and cease from our struggles, casting our burdens and cares upon him,  Letting Him work out his purpose and plan of salvation in our lives through that eternal life and the Holy Spirit which He gives freely to them that believe. For it is He who works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure.

This is the true rest.

Bobbyaf:

In either case there is absolutely no evidence that the early christians had a problem observing the sabbath, until Constantine created laws that forbad sabbath worship, which officially started in the 4th century.

In other words. . . ?

There is nowhere that New Testament Christianity had a keeping of the Sabbath, and the idea that Constantine created laws that forbad sabbath worship is unbiblical. That would mean that whatever law(s) Constantine created superceded apostolic revelation such as we read of in the New Testament - which is not true.

When you carefully follow the collective testimony of Scripture, you can't miss the mind of God on the sabbath in regards to Christian worship - and that is, Christians are not under a Sabbath law.

@ donnie

Isn't this a contradiction? With one breath you say it is not possible to keep everyday Holy and with another, you say it is.

I am not sure if you understand what I am trying to say. I should have worded it more carefully. Ok, let me go again. There is a difference between keeping a day holy, and living holy lives everyday. You see God didn't command us to keep everyday holy, but He commanded us to live holy everyday. There is no getting around that point. Besides, God is no fool to be confusing people with vague rules and commands. He specifically commanded to keep the 7th day holy, and He qualified that command by spelling out how we should do it. He gave us 6 days in which to do all our work. On the 7th day He commanded us to rest.

As I was saying this sabbath rest command came from creation when it was institutionilised after creation ended, not from Moses in the wilderness.

Of course it is possible to keep everyday holy in all practicality. If it wasn't so, we would not be commanded to do so.

Since we are speaking about the seventh-day sabbath, that would be impossible. Generally we are commanded to live holy everyday, but that is quite a different matter from the commandment to keep holy a specific day that God had in mind. Please don't confuse the issues here.

Of course we need to keep the sabbath day Holy. But it's important we know what day that is and how to keep that day holy. It is the day of the Church. The day of salvation. This is the day of the rest in Christ.

Not just a rest in Christ, but a literal rest. Both objectives are achieved on the seventh-day sabbath. In fact the whole thing becomes more meaningful when we choose to obey God's word and voice. Besides, I agree we aught to know what day it is, and the best way to know is to consult the bible.

We must ensure that we are in that rest.

Couldn't agree with you more!!! 

We must believe the gospel and cease from our struggles, casting our burdens and cares upon him,  Letting Him work out his purpose and plan of salvation in our lives through that eternal life and the Holy Spirit which He gives freely to them that believe. For it is He who works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure.

So true my friend.

This is the true rest.

Let us see what the scripture says.

Let me ask you something! Why do you keep Sunday? Was it based on a command from God, or was it based on a command fom men?

@ m4malik

In other words. . . ?

There is nowhere that New Testament Christianity had a keeping of the Sabbath,

To the contrary, and in fact thats not what I said.

and the idea that Constantine created laws that forbad sabbath worship is unbiblical.

It is very much biblical, because it was prophesied in Daniel 7 that men would "think to change God's set times and laws" in reference to the Beast or Anti-Christ. Constantine was merely a pre-cursor to the beginning of the beast age which began in the 6th century, AD538 to be exact.

That would mean that whatever law(s) Constantine created superceded apostolic revelation such as we read of in the New Testament - which is not true.

No man-made law can never supercede God's laws which are eternal. Civil laws however problematic they might appear to be to God's people, mean nothing to us, who know otherwise.

When you carefully follow the collective testimony of Scripture, you can't miss the mind of God on the sabbath in regards to Christian worship - and that is, Christians are not under a Sabbath law.

To the contrary there is an abundance of scriptural evidence that point to the fact that God still expects His people to honour His commands, and not the commands of men.

You show me your evidences and I will be kind enough to show you mine.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

To the contrary, and in fact thats not what I said.

Of course not, because that's my own summation - viz, "There is nowhere that New Testament Christianity had a keeping of the Sabbath."

Bobbyaf:

It is very much biblical, because it was prophesied in Daniel 7 that men would "think to change God's set times and laws" in reference to the Beast or Anti-Christ. Constantine was merely a pre-cursor to the beginning of the beast age which began in the 6th century, AD538 to be exact.

God didn't have to wait until the 6th century for the age of the "beast" to begin (if there's anything like that), and what you've inferred in the Constantine issue is merely human conjecture. There are men who have always sought to change set times and laws, and Daniel 7 was not specifically in reference merely to Constantine in the 6th century, but rather an open prophetic declaration of the character of a declining age. Before Constantine emerged, the apostles warned us that "the mystery of iniquity" (II Thes. 2:7) was already at work in their own day in the 1st century; and that there were already many antichrists influenced by the 'spirit of antichrist' which was already in the world back then in the 1st century (I John 2:18 & 4:3). Constantine was a late comer in the scheme of things in the 6th century and he had no such power to change the Word of God.

Bobbyaf:

No man-made law can never supercede God's laws which are eternal. Civil laws however problematic they might appear to be to God's people, mean nothing to us, who know otherwise.

Thank God you know that.

Bobbyaf:

To the contrary there is an abundance of scriptural evidence that point to the fact that God still expects His people to honour His commands, and not the commands of men.

It is not just alone a matter of knowing that God's laws are eternal, but one has to carefully study the context of application in any reading to get a full picture of what God's Word says at any instance.

Bobbyaf:

You show me your evidences and I will be kind enough to show you mine.

I'd rather offer that 4get_me has done an excellent job on the issue, and you could harvest a rich collection of verses to the point from his entries. The following texts, bear out the fact that Christians are not under a law of a seventh-day Sabbath, for they usually gathered for worship on the first day of the week:

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. - Acts 20:7.

Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. - I Cor. 16:2.

The first day of the week signifies a new creation in contrast to the seventh day which would point to completion under an old creation. As Christians, we're not under a seventh-day observance code but rather a 'new creation' living which was enacted for us by the victory of the Lord Jesus Christ in His atoning work.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. - Col 2:16-17.

Bobbyaf,

A lot of us are aware that sunday might have been declared a day of worship by men.

But for folks like me who go to church, every other day, i do not see the difference between sunday and monday or wednesday.

I remember a time when i was in church everyday. Mondays: prayer services, tuesdays: foundation school, wednesdays: worship service, thursdays: cell leaders' meeting, fridays: cell meeting, saturdays: early morning prayers and sundays: worship service.

And remeber, if you seek to be justified by the law of Moses, you are a debtor to keep the whlole law, and i hope you are aware that that goes beyond the ten commandments. Of course there will be condemnation awaiting such a one.

The time has come when the true worshipers shall worship the father in Spirit and in truth. We should let the law of the  Spirit guide us into all truth because u see, this law is the only thing that can lift you above sin, the world and the devil.

According to the bible, there is no need to argue over days, months, holy days or festivals. The essence of our exixtence is CHRIST.

@ m4malik

Of course not, because that's my own summation - viz, "There is nowhere that New Testament Christianity had a keeping of the Sabbath."

Forgive me my brother, but I am not so much interested in your summation as I am in what the bible says. Once again if you need biblical evidences to show that christians kept the seventh-day sabbath, I can show them to you.

God didn't have to wait until the 6th century for the age of the "beast" to begin (if there's anything like that),

It was never a question of God waitng. It so happened that certain signs concerning what Daniel mentioned in the book started to take shape around the time of Constantine. No where in history was there any previous attempt to regulate Sunday as a day of rest, except as recorded here in the anals of history:

"On the venerable day of the sun (Sunday) let the Magistrates and people residing in the cities rest, and let all workshops be closed, " Codex Justinianus lib. 3, tit 12,3

For political reasons Constantine struck a deal that would satisfy both christians and pagans. The pagans still had their Sunday, since that was their day used by them to honour the Sun God, and the christians fearing further persecution gradually kept both days, side by side, until the official establishment of the RCC in AD538, which further strengthened Sunday observance. This was the real and substantive commencment of the falling way mentoned by St. Paul.

and what you've inferred in the Constantine issue is merely human conjecture.

Do a simple google check and insert the phrase "edict of Milan" and you 'll see for sure whether or not its a human conjecture. History cannot lie. After Constantine defeated his rivals for power, and became the sole emperor, he regulated christianity as the religion of the empire.

There are men who have always sought to change set times and laws,

That may be true but it doesn't make the point about Constantine untrue. You may not see that event as important based on what direction you're viewing bible prophecy.

and Daniel 7 was not specifically in reference merely to Constantine in the 6th century, but rather an open prophetic declaration of the character of a declining age.

Of course Daniel wouldn't have known that Constantine would have been a part of the scheme you see. However, after history unfolds, and we begin to look back, its easier to put things into perspective. besides, i neve rsaid the 6th century, I said the 4th. The 6th century came into the picture when the Roman Catholic church was officially launched as having total control of the empire where being the official religion of Rome is concerned.

Before Constantine emerged, the apostles warned us that "the mystery of iniquity" (II Thes. 2:7) was already at work in their own day in the 1st century; and that there were already many antichrists influenced by the 'spirit of antichrist'

There were not many Anti-Christs, but rather there were different teachings that portrayed the "spirit of anti-christ" There ia a vast difference. What the prophet spoke about in chapter 7 had to do with a specific religious system that would become the Anti-Christ. Revelation 13 refers to the very same religious power as the beast. Both prophets spoke of clues and characteristics that would make it easy for God's people to identify it during the period that it would reign for.

which was already in the world back then in the 1st century (I John 2:18 & 4:3). Constantine was a late comer in the scheme of things in the 6th century and he had no such power to change the Word of God

Constantine is the least of the problem right now. He was just the fore-runner of things. I just happened to mention him, because he had a role to play in the establishment of Sunday worship.

Daniel 7, Revelation 13 both speak about a power that would attempt to change God's law and worship system. daniel 7 made it clear that four world kingdoms would rule, the last being Rome under which Christ was crucified. daniel went on to say that from the Roman kingdom would arise a power that would "speak great words against the Most High" and "wear out the saints for a time, times, and half a time, being 31/2 symbolic years. ( see Daniel 7:25)

Since a day represents a literal year then it logically means that this power would rule for 1260 years. Is it co-incidental that the RCC started ruling from AD538 and ended its rule temporarily in AD1798, when the French Revolution brought to an end all the schisms, aristocracy, and church curruption, and placing the pope under captivity where he died in exile? This is the deadly would mentioned in Revelation 13 that was given to the beast power.

This religious power in the form of the RCC is nothing more than the anti-Christ itself usurping the ministry and glory of Christ. This was known long ago by different reformers. Its nothng new.

It is this same religious power that has introduced pagan festivals, including Sunday, christmas, easter, to name a few, by simply baptising them in the name of christianity.

Its no wonder John says "come out of her my people, and be not partakers of her sins, "

God's holy day of rest is the sabbath, being Saturday. God hasn't changed and neither has His words. he still commands us to "remember the sabbath day to keep it holy, "

@ bobbyaf,
once again i beg to disagree with taking verses in isolation to suit private interpretation.

Dan 7: 16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the true meaning of all this.
      "So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.'

    19 "Then I wanted to know the true meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

    23 "He gave me this explanation: 'The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. [a]

    26 " 'But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.'

I will be very brief here. Actually there are 7 kingdoms that were prophesied in the bible. Reference to the 7 kingdoms is briefly mentioned in Rev 17: 10. Starting with the Egyptian empire in the days of Moses and ending with the Revived Roman empire now present in our time.
The fourth beast in verse 19 is the revived Roman empire. The ten horns refer to the top 10 EU member nations, remember the EU started with 7 before expanding to 10. After that they began to take in smaller EU states.
The little horn that speaks blasphemies is the beast that will be revealed during the tribulation. Look at Rev `17. The scarlet colored beast mentioned is the same as the fourth beast in Dan 7. It has 7 heads and 10 horns, the heads are 7 hills on which the woman seats (note the woman is the roman catholic church sitting on the seven hills on which the vatican sits today).

In Rev 17: the 10 horns (10 kings) give their power to the beast 1hr (7yrs of the tribulation). Rev 17: 12And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

   13These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

   14These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

   15And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the LovePeddler sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

   16And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the LovePeddler, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

   17For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

   18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Since a day represents a literal year then it logically means that this power would rule for 1260 years. Is it co-incidental that the RCC started ruling from AD538 and ended its rule temporarily in AD1798, when the French Revolution brought to an end all the schisms, aristocracy, and church curruption, and placing the pope under captivity where he died in exile? This is the deadly would mentioned in Revelation 13 that was given to the beast power.

Nope. 1260 days here refers to 42 months, 3.5yrs, all the last days of the great tribulation.

Read Rev 17, the Roman catholic church will play a major role in the rise of the beast. She is the 7th kingdom from which the 8th (the beast) rises in verse 11.

Rev 13 AS AGAIN REFERS TO THE TRIBULATION! The beast will rise first as a wonder, he will have power to do miracles and bring world peace. He will amaze the world for the first 3.5 yrs of the tribulation before the rapture.
Verse 3And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast
Note the rise of the false prophet in verse 11 with horns like a lamb and voice like a dragon to decieve the people.

The rest of chapt 13 speaks of the issuing of the mark of the beast. It's plain that did not happen during the dark ages but will happen during the tribulation.

@ Donnie

Bobbyaf,

A lot of us are aware that sunday might have been declared a day of worship by men.

But for folks like me who go to church, every other day, i do not see the difference between sunday and monday or wednesday.

I remember a time when i was in church everyday. Mondays: prayer services, tuesdays: foundation school, wednesdays: worship service, thursdays: cell leaders' meeting, fridays: cell meeting, saturdays: early morning prayers and sundays: worship service.

I appreciate that! Worship is a beautiful experience. One should do it as often as they can.  , but I am not arguing about worship. Remember what Samuel the prophet said to God's annointed king, called Saul?  "Its better to obey than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams"

Wasn't it typical for the people back then to worship with sacrifice? Wasn't it God who instituted those types of services? Yet when it came to being obedient to God's exact instructions, obedience held a higher esteem above the usual worship format.

Remember what Jesus said to the woman at the well concering how God desires worship? The two elements mentioned by Jesus were:

spirit which means a degree of thoughtfulness or intellect

truth which means that the one who is worshipping must do so without any form of false understanding of what God expects. There can be no room for error where God's words are concerned.

And remeber, if you seek to be justified by the law of Moses, you are a debtor to keep the whlole law,

We are not talking about Moses' law here. Moses didn't write the 10 commanments. All other legal codes, including the civic, ceremonial, and sacrificial were all drafted by the hands of Moses as instructed by God.

and i hope you are aware that that goes beyond the ten commandments. Of course there will be condemnation awaiting such a one.

I am not certain what you're saying in this statement. In either case when a person experiences the grace of Jesus Christ his oe her life will be one of obedience. Listen to Paul as he describes the relationship between born-again christians and God's law of 10 commandments.

Romans 7:14
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.

Notice further what Paul said concerning God's commandments.

Romans 7:12
So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

The time has come when the true worshipers shall worship the father in Spirit and in truth. We should let the law of the Spirit guide us into all truth

I am not sure if there is a thing called law of the spirit, it has to be the other way around. Of course I very much agree with you there, but it doesn't mean that we are not subject to being obedient to God's 10 commandments.

because u see, this law is the only thing that can lift you above sin, the world and the devil.

I am more inclined to think its grace that is able to do that, not the law.

NB, I am not suggesting that in any way that the law can save any one from sin. Only Jesus can do that. The 10 commandments is just a standard of God's justice and government. The apostle James refers to it as a mirrow. Each time we look inside the mirrow we can see how dirty we are, but this law is powerless to clean one's dirty face. Its just a mirrow. The only cleansing stream is the blood of Jesus.

Listen to Paul re-confirming the purpose of the 10 commandments:

Romans 7:7
What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet.

@ bobbyaf,
once again i beg to disagree with taking verses in isolation to suit private interpretation.

Dan 7: 16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the true meaning of all this.
"So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.'

19 "Then I wanted to know the true meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

23 "He gave me this explanation: 'The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. [a]

26 " 'But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.'

I will be very brief here. Actually there are 7 kingdoms that were prophesied in the bible. Reference to the 7 kingdoms is briefly mentioned in Rev 17: 10. Starting with the Egyptian empire in the days of Moses and ending with the Revived Roman empire now present in our time.
The fourth beast in verse 19 is the revived Roman empire. The ten horns refer to the top 10 EU member nations, remember the EU started with 7 before expanding to 10. After that they began to take in smaller EU states.
The little horn that speaks blasphemies is the beast that will be revealed during the tribulation. Look at Rev `17. The scarlet colored beast mentioned is the same as the fourth beast in Dan 7. It has 7 heads and 10 horns, the heads are 7 hills on which the woman seats (note the woman is the roman catholic church sitting on the seven hills on which the vatican sits today).

In Rev 17: the 10 horns (10 kings) give their power to the beast 1hr (7yrs of the tribulation). Rev 17: 12And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

14These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

15And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the LovePeddler sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

16And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the LovePeddler, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

17For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

I don't see how you can fit 7 kingdoms into Daniel's prophecy when it is clear he saw four beasts. LOL

Besides, what John saw is a further development of what Daniel saw, so more than likely the visionary presentations woud have been different.

Bobbyaf:

I don't see how you can fit 7 kingdoms into Daniel's prophecy when it is clear he saw four beasts. LOL

Besides, what John saw is a further development of what Daniel saw, so more than likely the visionary presentations woud have been different.

I absolutely agree with you, but it is obvious John saw the fuller details of what was shown to Daniel. Note the striking similarities btw John's beast who is the eigth but is OF THE SEVENTH kingdom and Daniel's 4th beast.

@ David

I absolutely agree with you, but it is obvious John saw the fuller details of what was shown to Daniel.

Yes, but it all depends on what you mean by fuller details, There are some details that John mentioned about the beas power that involved more details, but the fact still remains Daniel addressed 4 kingdoms in his book. John mentioned 1 beast having 7 heads, and 10 crowns.

Two different situations here.

Note also that Daniel 2 makes mention of 4 kngdoms using the metallic man to illustrate his message. He described to the babylonian king that three kingdoms would follow his kingdom.

Note the striking similarities between John's beast who is the eigth but is OF THE SEVENTH kingdom and Daniel's 4th beast.

There is no similarity here, and the subject matters are totally different. if you study the symbols you will see what I am talking about. Unless you study the symbols you cannot see the message.

Some day I will share my decoding with you.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

Forgive me my brother, but I am not so much interested in your summation as I am in what the bible says.

That may well be, but so far you've rather consistently demonstrated that you're not so much interested in what in fact the Bible says than in your own ideas. We'll see a few of them in just a moment.

Bobbyaf:

Once again if you need biblical evidences to show that christians kept the seventh-day sabbath, I can show them to you

Why the delays up until now?

Bobbyaf:

It was never a question of God waitng. It so happened that certain signs concerning what Daniel mentioned in the book started to take shape around the time of Constantine. No where in history was there any previous attempt to regulate Sunday as a day of rest, except as recorded here in the anals of history:
"On the venerable day of the sun (Sunday) let the Magistrates and people residing in the cities rest, and let all workshops be closed, " Codex Justinianus lib. 3, tit 12,3

You'd just need to get the full picture of Biblical prophecy than taking texts in isolation. By emphasizing Daniel's prophecy and ignoring the prophetic declarations of the Church age as elucidated in my previous post, you would find Constantine fitting your ticket for the Sabbath change argument you're proposing.

Bobbyaf:

For political reasons Constantine struck a deal that would satisfy both christians and pagans. The pagans still had their Sunday, since that was their day used by them to honour the Sun God, and the christians fearing further persecution gradually kept both days, side by side, until the official establishment of the RCC in AD538, which further strengthened Sunday observance. This was the real and substantive commencment of the falling way mentoned by St. Paul.

Political and other means have always been used by anti-Christian persecutors down the ages, but what you've done here is one demonstration of the fact that you're taking your eyes off Scripture and pandering to some ideas that hardly bear substance to issues. Real Christians in the early ages have never feared "further persecution", and in no way did they gradually begin to keep both days 'side by side'. Certainly, there was a Constantine (born Flavius Valerius Constantinus at Nis on Feb. 27, 280) who became co-emperor in 305 of the then Roman Empire; and he used politics (rather than persecution) to strengthen his Sun-god worship by introducing syncretistic elements into Christianity in his empire. The result? Christians were undeterred but remained steadfast, refusing any syncretism even at the threat of death - which many of them suffered.

Second, before the arrival of Constantine on the scene, Christians had been worshipping on Sunday - the first day of the week; rather than a transition imposed by the Emperor from Saturday (the seventh day). Again, see Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:2. If anything at all, Constantine didn't emerge to find Christians worshipping on, or keeping, the Sabbath - rather, he found them doing so on the first day of the week which is our Sunday. So, how could one reason that Constantine was responsible for the "change" from the seventh day to the first day of the week for Christians?

I'm sorry to note that what you refer to as the "official establishment of the RCC in AD538" is a convenient redaction of Roman Catholic history. The system of RCC was not officially established in the 6th century but much earlier, some tracing it as far back as the second or third centuries.

The "real and substantive commencment of the falling way mentoned by St. Paul" would be found in II Thes. 2:3 - Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. Notice that it is connected with certain events, notably the man of sin being revealed. You haven't met that man yet, and when the apostles spoke of this decline and the "falling away", they spoke of it in context of the end that would usher in the day of Christ (v.2). To peg the commencement of the falling away of which Paul spoke at the political interpolation of Constantine is only a convenient juggling of ideas that falls short of the real essence of prophetic declarations.

Bobbyaf:

Do a simple google check and insert the phrase "edict of Milan" and you 'll see for sure whether or not its a human conjecture. History cannot lie. After Constantine defeated his rivals for power, and became the sole emperor, he regulated christianity as the religion of the empire.

Aye, but as I noted above, your political history of Constantine did not bear the fact of a "change" from the seventh day to the Sunday observed in Christianity. The first day of the week (Sunday) was already being enjoyed by Christians as the day of worship and Christian activities long before the Emperor in question arrived on the scene.

Bobbyaf:

That may be true but it doesn't make the point about Constantine untrue. You may not see that event as important based on what direction you're viewing bible prophecy.

Calmly read through your sources again and see if the "change" of the Sabbath has any substance - unless you're still ignoring the Scriptures.

Bobbyaf:

Of course Daniel wouldn't have known that Constantine would have been a part of the scheme you see. However, after history unfolds, and we begin to look back, its easier to put things into perspective. besides, i neve rsaid the 6th century, I said the 4th. The 6th century came into the picture when the Roman Catholic church was officially launched as having total control of the empire where being the official religion of Rome is concerned.

Huuhh??  
Did you just say that you never said the 6th century? Let me quote you again:

Bobbyaf:

Constantine was merely a pre-cursor to the beginning of the beast age which began in the 6th century, AD538 to be exact.

So there.

Bobbyaf:

There were not many Anti-Christs, but rather there were different teachings that portrayed the "spirit of anti-christ" There ia a vast difference.

The Bible:
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. - I John 2:18

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

Bobbyaf:

What the prophet spoke about in chapter 7 had to do with a specific religious system that would become the Anti-Christ. Revelation 13 refers to the very same religious power as the beast. Both prophets spoke of clues and characteristics that would make it easy for God's people to identify it during the period that it would reign for.

This is classic Seventh-Day Adventist theology, and has no Biblical bearing, sorry. The term 'antichrist' is alone employed by the apostle John in his epistles, and he shows that the Anti-Christ is not a 'specific religious system' but a very despicable individual who takes on the personality and power of the Devil. He is variously described in Scripture as -

   ¤ the man of sin, the son of perdition - II Thes. 2:3

   ¤ that Wicked (or the wicked one) - II Thes. 2:8

The Lord Jesus Christ did not treat antichrists as religious systems but as individuals - sinister and diabolic in character and operation:For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect (Matt. 24:24).

What is more, in both Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, this sinister minister of the devil is portrayed as a diabolically powerful individual, hideous in motive and blasphemous in thought and speech:

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. (Dan. 7:25). . . And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. (Rev 13:5-7).

There's an abundance of texts to show that you actually got it wrong here, and perhaps that's why your pedantic allusion to Constantine is weakened by your taking a few texts in isolation. What is even more surprising is that, on the one hand you seem to fit Constantine (an individual) into Daniel 7:25; but on the other hand, you conveniently re-interpreted the same Daniel 7:25 as a religious system!

Bobbyaf:

Constantine is the least of the problem right now. He was just the fore-runner of things. I just happened to mention him, because he had a role to play in the establishment of Sunday worship.

That may well be; but Sunday as a day of Christian worship predates the Emperor - Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:2.

Bobbyaf:

Since a day represents a literal year then it logically means that this power would rule for 1260 years. Is it co-incidental that the RCC started ruling from AD538 and ended its rule temporarily in AD1798, when the French Revolution brought to an end all the schisms, aristocracy, and church curruption, and placing the pope under captivity where he died in exile? This is the deadly would mentioned in Revelation 13 that was given to the beast power.

You're making a huge mistake by inferring that there was an end of corruption in RCC rule - back then, maybe; but what is happening now? (apologies to any Catholic reading this - I don't mean to be crude). You're making it sound like Roman Catholicism is the beast! Sorry, that idea is often pandered by some people who virulently oppose the Catholic Church and haven't studied Revelation 13 for what God's Word says. The whole context of that chapter is not predicated on Catholicism, however the many problems and unbiblical practices they adopt. The real beast is yet to be revealed (remember II Thes. 2:1-8?), and when the time comes, by God's wisdom people who know the Lord will be able to see this divine drama clearly, especially when it comes to counting the number of the beast - 666 (see verse 18).

No, the RCC is not the beast of Rev. 13; and to devise notions about that weak theory only reveals the weakness of the theorists themselves.

Bobbyaf:

This religious power in the form of the RCC is nothing more than the anti-Christ itself usurping the ministry and glory of Christ. This was known long ago by different reformers. Its nothng new.

The Reformers may be right in some of their pursuits, but hardly correct in so many other things, not least of which is their misgivings about the RCC. Their theories about the RCC being the beast and the antichrist of Rev. 13 is dead wrong, and those still holding that theory should kindly let go and simply go to Scripture where God speaks.

Bobbyaf:

It is this same religious power that has introduced pagan festivals, including Sunday, christmas, easter, to name a few, by simply baptising them in the name of christianity.
Its no wonder John says "come out of her my people, and be not partakers of her sins, "

One could blame a lot of things on the RCC - but to go so far as to give them a bad name that is hardly theirs is dishonest.

Second, the voice in Rev. 18:4 was not John's, but one out of heaven (And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues). This text has to do with a corrupt system of spirituality (Babylon the Great - v.2), but your transition from Revelation 13 is a sad interpolation. It helps to understand that 'the Beast' in chapter 13 is quite different from 'Babylon the great' in chapter 18. Let's not stew up theories that make it convenient to blame all our misgivings on the RCC; otherwise before God we would be guilty of spreading lies by misapplying God's word. The theories of the Reformers on this issue are dead wrong, and we should save ourselves a load of trouble by discarding them.

Bobbyaf:

God's holy day of rest is the sabbath, being Saturday. God hasn't changed and neither has His words. he still commands us to "remember the sabbath day to keep it holy, "

God never gave any such command to the Christian Church, for that is precisely a quote of the Mosaic Law - Exo. 20:8 ~~ Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. This was a commandment to the Jews under the Mosaic Law, and Scripture specifically tells us that only to the Jews "pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rom. 9:4). I'm not making a case against the Sabbath; rather, I'm pointing out that God didn't give any such commandment to the Church.

@Bobbyaf,

I'd like to take up a few lines about your use of the Law -

Bobbyaf:

I am not certain what you're saying in this statement. In either case when a person experiences the grace of Jesus Christ his oe her life will be one of obedience. Listen to Paul as he describes the relationship between born-again christians and God's law of 10 commandments.
Romans 7:14
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.
Notice further what Paul said concerning God's commandments.
Romans 7:12
So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

I'm not sure what you were driving at, but to quote certain texts without considering their import in the full scheme of God's economy is to miss the point. Paul wasn't asking that Christians keep the Law - not at all. In fact, he underscores the practical impossibility of any man to do so -

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.. - Gal. 3:11-12.

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. - Rom. 6:14.

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, . . . - I Tim. 1:9.

From these and some other texts, it is obvious that Paul was not arguing that Christians keep the Law, for the Law made nothing perfect.

Bobbyaf:

I am not sure if there is a thing called law of the spirit, it has to be the other way around. Of course I very much agree with you there, but it doesn't mean that we are not subject to being obedient to God's 10 commandments.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. - Rom. 8:2

Bobbyaf:

@ David

Yes, but it all depends on what you mean by fuller details, There are some details that John mentioned about the beas power that involved more details, but the fact still remains Daniel addressed 4 kingdoms in his book. John mentioned 1 beast having 7 heads, and 10 crowns.

Two different situations here.

Note also that Daniel 2 makes mention of 4 kngdoms using the metallic man to illustrate his message. He described to the babylonian king that three kingdoms would follow his kingdom.

There is no similarity here, and the subject matters are totally different. if you study the symbols you will see what I am talking about. Unless you study the symbols you cannot see the message.

Some day I will share my decoding with you.

I would really love to have your own view of Dan 7 and Rev 13. Please read both chapters carefully, the 4th beast in Dan 7 and the beast in Rev 13 are one and the same. Note they both have 10 horns. That in Rev 13 is probably a more explicit version. The little horn mentioned in both is the Devil himself coming to the earth in form of a man.

Yes Daniel did mention 4 kingdoms in his vision, that must be because 3 of the other empires/kingdoms were already fallen. John on the other hand was shown the full 7 kingdoms.

@ David

I would really love to have your own view of Dan 7 and Rev 13. Please read both chapters carefully, the 4th beast in Dan 7 and the beast in Rev 13 are one and the same.

Logically speaking that cannot be, at least not if you really understand what Revelation 13 is all about. The 4th beast of daniel 7 is pagan Rome, logically.

The little horn that grew out of the 10 horns, and up-rooted three horns from the 4th beast represent Papal Rome or the RCC. History verifies that when the kingdoms of the Heruli, vandals, and the Ostrogoths disputed with the the RCC about the nature of Christ, the RCC organised a crusade against those kingdoms and completely removed them from the face of the earth.

The 10 horns being the 10 original kingdoms of europe obviously grew out of the demise of Pagan Rome which came to an end in AD476. In AD538 the RCC became took control of the seat of Rome dealing with religious as well as political matters. This church in pretense is indeed the little horn of Daniel 7, as well as the beast in Revelation 13. Both descriptions by two prophets, describe the same entity that carries out the same blasphemous activities. Both prophets describe the time period that this religious power would have reigned for before recieving its deadly wound.

Daniel 7:23 speaking of Rome says:
The fourth beast shall be A fourth kingdom on earth, Which shall be different from all other kingdoms,  And shall devour the whole earth, Trample it and break it in pieces.

Daniel 7:24 says speaking of the 10 european kingdoms arising from Rome's demise says:
24 The ten horns are ten kings Who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall rise after them; He shall be different from the first ones,  And shall subdue three kings.

So its clear that the little horn is a separate power functioning on its own. This entity is the RCC. Ever wondered why it calls itself Roman Catholic? LOL, think about that!

Daniel 7:25 talks about the this entity and what it intends to do:
25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,  Shall persecute the saints of the Most High, And shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand For a time and times and half a time.

The time, times, and 1/2 time mentioned here tells you how long this entity would have persecuted God's holy people for, and to verify its role as Anti-Christ. The 31/2 symbolic years represents 1260 literal years which fits into history so smoothly ( Praise be to the MOST HIGH GOD) in that there is only one religious power that I know of that ruled Europe between AD538 to AD1798, during which three of the original kingdoms of 10, were completely anhilated from the map, all because of religious intolerance by the RCC.

Notice how Revelation describes the beast in chapter 13:
5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months.

Among the many things said about the beast, which can be very confusing to many, bears striking resemblance to what was said about the little horn in Daniel 7:25

The 42 months = 3 1/2 years = 1260 days = 1260 literal years.

42 months X 30 days = 1260 symbolic days       30 days were always used by bible scholars to calculate a prophetic month.

So here we go. The historical as well as the symbolic proof is there.

Note they both have 10 horns. That in Rev 13 is probably a more explicit version. The little horn mentioned in both is the Devil himself coming to the earth in form of a man.

Yes the power in Revelation 13 has 10 horns, and thats becasue when it started it existed among the 10 original kingdoms of europe, it being a kingdom in its own right. That is why crowns are used to siginify kingdoms. The little horn is none other than the RCC, based on how that power fulfilled biblical prophecies.

Besides, Satan is not a man, at least not yet.  , Right now he is still a powerful angel obviously working behind the scenes, and making full use of the beast. Notice how Revelation 13 describes the dragon, being Satan himself, giving power and authority to the first beast. Revelation 12 verifies that the Dragon is that old serpent called the devil. It was he who pulled a 1/3 of God's angels with him from heaven.

@ M4Malik

I'm not sure what you were driving at, but to quote certain texts without considering their import in the full scheme of God's economy is to miss the point.

But I certainly didn't do any such thing. Besides, Paul speaks in clear language.

Paul wasn't asking that Christians keep the Law - not at all. In fact, he underscores the practical impossibility of any man to do so -

Not true friend! Paul said no such thing. Paul said "I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me"

God said to Abraham "Be ye holy as I am Holy"

While I will agree with you that Paul wasn't making a big issue of the law in Romans 7, and neithr am I, but one thing is sure He set out to clarify something, otherwise he would not have said what he said about the law. Besides, Paul never had to ask christians to keep the law of 10 commandments since christians are usually obedient naturally. If you profess Christ you aught to follow His instructions. Jesus said in:

John 14:15
If you love me keep my commandments

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them, - Gal. 3:11-12.

The question is what aspect of law was Paul talking about here in Galations? This is where the confusion steps in all the time. In Galations Paul qualifies the situation, by saying that circumcision cannot save anyone. The issue was never about the sabbath. It was something else.

Now that you mention being justified by the law its funny how Paul says something totally different in another section of his writings. Read:

Romans 2:12,13
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

Is Paul contradicting himself? Obviously not! It all depends on the context of what he talks about. Here Paul uses the word law in one context, and in Galations he uses it in another context. Hence it behooves us to seek out exactly what he is talking about.

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. - Rom. 6:14.

Notice it said sin shall not have dominion over you becasue true christians are obedient to God's instructions and really have nothing to worry about. Hence God's law cannot judge us when we are obedient. In fact when it says "not under the law" it means not being under the[b] condemnation [/b] of the law.

Let me ask you a question. Who is more likely to be under the law? The one who steals another man's wife, or the one who desists from yielding to temptation to do the same? Each time you set out to steal something what comes to mind? Isn't it "thou shall not steal"?

I am not saying that we are saved by the law? We are saved by grace, but the ridiculous notion that God's law somehow has taken a back seat, and is no longer applicable to christians, is a deception, or a gross mis-understanding.

Listen to David as he describes the law of 10 commandments:

Psalms 19:7
"the law of the Lord is perfect, "

Psalms 37:31
The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, . . . - I Tim. 1:9.

Hhhhmmmnnn, are you a sinner? Are you yet perfect? If the answer is no then the law applies to you. You might not be out there killing anyone, or living an adulterous life, but you're not perfect as yet, are you? Listen to what Paul says about what sin is:

1 John 3:4
Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

From these and some other texts, it is obvious that Paul was not arguing that Christians keep the Law, for the Law made nothing perfect.

For the nth time no one is saying that!

Just out of curiosity name one of the 10 commandments you find to be a problem?

@ bobbyaf,

to thy tents o Isreal. Obviously you have decided what to believe. One only wonders what we are still doing here on earth if all the events of Dan 7 and Rev 13 were fulfilled in the dark ages.
Then what about the events in Rev 14, 15, 16, 17? Do they tie up to occuring in the dark ages too because by careful scrutiny you'd realise they are events that would take place around the same time as the events in Rev 13?

About your 1260 days being 1260 yrs, that is absolutely not true. Agreed the bible talks about a day meaning a thousand but that doesn not automatically tie every day to be a thousand yrs. Some are left as they are, days! Those 42 months are symbolic and are mentioned several times in the bible.
Read some parts of revelation, u'd see a time, times and half a time - 3.5 yrs = 42 months = 1260 days. The bible will not mention something several times and in several ways if it had no symbolic meaning. Note that Rev 17 ties the same beast with 7 heads and ten horns with the woman, the same beast as mentioned in Rev 13.

You have to read through to the end of chapt 13, the same beast is connected with the issuing of the mark of the beast WHICH WILL ONLY OCCUR AT THE LAST 3.5 YRS OF THE TRIBULATION AFTER THE RAPTURE! It is impossible that the same chapter is talking about events in the dark ages and the end of the age in the same breath.

@ M4Malik

I see we are going back and forth here. Do you mind if we use scripture alone to verify how Sunday keeping started.

Do me a favour can you submitt all those texts in the NT that show how the transition took place from sabbath worship to the official gathering on the first day of the week?

I'd appreciate it!

@ David

@ bobbyaf,

to thy tents o Isreal. Obviously you have decided what to believe.

Hhhmmnn! No comment! 

One only wonders what we are still doing here on earth if all the events of Dan 7 and Rev 13 were fulfilled in the dark ages.

You tell me! I was never of the belief that those events were supposed to have ended the age! 

Then what about the events in Rev 14, 15, 16, 17? Do they tie up to occuring in the dark ages too because by careful scrutiny you'd realise they are events that would take place around the same time as the events in Rev 13?

Not from a historical standpoint. While the chapters in the book were placed in a set order, it doesn't mean that the historical order has to be the same. John certainly didn't put commas and punctuation in his writings. Its the bible compilers who did what they did.

About your 1260 days being 1260 years, that is absolutely not true.

All bible scholars agree on this use of a day to represent a literal year. I am not sure where your scholarship lies?

Agreed the bible talks about a day meaning a thousand but that doesn not automatically tie every day to be a thousand years.

So far you're the only one who is saying that! I didn't apply that text as far as my memory serves me!

Some are left as they are, days!

Not when it comes to symbolic language. Its just that you're not familiar with the decoding principle. Every symbol has to be decoded, other wise the nothing would make any sense. The book of revelation possesses both lock and key. For every code there is a decoder.

Those 42 months are symbolic and are mentioned several times in the bible.

So what! They still have to mean something! And I say they mean 1260 literal years.

Read some parts of revelation, u'd see a time, times and half a time - 3.5 years = 42 months = 1260 days.

And they all point to one period in history , papal rule for 1260 years.

The bible will not mention something several times and in several ways if it had no symbolic meaning.

Listen to yourself!  , and I am saying that all those symbolisms have a meaning. Its your job to ask for the keys and God will supply.

Note that Rev 17 ties the same beast with 7 heads and ten horns with the woman, the same beast as mentioned in Rev 13.

But it supplies even more details. Thats a given.

You have to read through to the end of chapt 13, the same beast is connected with the issuing of the mark of the beast WHICH WILL ONLY OCCUR AT THE LAST 3.5 YRS OF THE TRIBULATION AFTER THE RAPTURE!

No such thing! The notion that surrounds the tribulation as understood by you, is that the church in heaven will escape it, right? Listen to what Revelation says about those who are in heaven.

Revelation 7:9-11
9 After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice:  "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." 11All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,

These people are logically in heaven worshipping God at His throne. Now listen to what is said about these people who are in heaven:

Revelation 7:13,14
13Then one of the elders asked me, "These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?"  14 I answered, "Sir, you know."  And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

The last thing that these people encountered was the great tribulation before going to heaven, that Jesus said would happen just before His second return in Matthew 24. How strange that you are teaching that the church will escape the great tribulation, when the bible clearly states otherwise.

Also notice Revelation 15:2 and how it mentioned about those overcoming having harps:
And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

Notice the connection between those who were mentioned as being in heaven in chapter 7, and who it is said came out of great tribulation, and the ones mentioned in Rev. 15:2 as having gotten the victory over the beast, and his name and image. Notice where they are, and that they have harps just like the ones mentioned in chapter 7?

Hhhmmnn! Interesting isn't it?

It is impossible that the same chapter is talking about events in the dark ages and the end of the age in the same breath.

Funny how you're the one concluding that!  [quote][/quote]

When you are acquinted with the Spirit of the Word, you will know how to handle the law properly( as something that has been abolished). The old testament was written for our learning and the new was written for us to live by.


For the law was not made for the righteous man but for sinners. For the ungodly and for the disobedient.

For those of us who have believed the true gospel, we not only recieved righteousness as a free gift from God; we were made the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.

The law does not have the ability to make a man perfect. Only the Holy Spirit has that ability to build his church.

The law of the Spirit is that higher law of life in Christ.

God said in Ezekiel: I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statues and you shall keep my judgements and do them.

and the bible says: for it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.