CONSTANTINE ANTICHRIST 5 ( The Council of Nicea)

image taken from http://www.forumancientcoins.com/articles/constantine_ch_rho_files/constantine_ch_rho.htm

CONSTANTINE A FALSE BELIEVER. This is the best description so far of the man many believed to be a real convert to Christianity. In the past posts I made (mostly copy & pasted from credible sources) we have an understanding that Constantine was destined and used to changed the course of  history of the Roman Empire. He used deceptive tactics and other  people for the glory of himself and his empire where in the long run has become a religious and political machine. A machine that is powered by demonic doctrines, lies and spiritual fornication in the name of GOD. Satan's temple has literally been set up in now what we call Vatican City. A temple was made in there to worship a man who deceives the whole world, making himself like God, a so called vicar of Christ telling the world that Lucifer is the father of Jesus.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. " - 1 john 4:1-3 KJV

CONSTANTINE WAS NOT ONLY A DECEIVER. But he was a strong supporter of ARIANISM including his close blood relatives. Hence, it is possible that the spirit of anti-Christ was his guiding spirit?

related topic - https://www.thoughtco.com/arian-controversy-and-council-of-nicea-111752

   

 What happened at the council of Nicaea? Was the Trinity made up there? Was the divinity of Jesus declared there for the first time? This video answers these question? Sources: History of the Christian Church (Eerdmans, 1985) Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1 (Jurgens, 1998) The Christological Controversy (Norris, 1980) The Rise of Christianity (Rodney Stark, 1997) The Church History (Eusebius) Dialogus Adversus Luciferianos (St. Jerome)

    TO BE CONTINUED...             

 

CONSTANTINE ANTICHRIST 4 ( Revelation 17 )

  "Matthew Henry (written by William Tong) on Rev. 17.9:

    Here we have the mystery of this vision explained. The apostle wonders at the sight of this woman: the angel undertakes to open this vision to him, it being the key of the former visions; and he tells the apostle what was meant by the beast on which the woman sat; but it is so explained as still to need further explanation. 1. This beast was, and is not, and yet is; that is, it was a seat of idolatry and persecution; and is not, that is, not in the ancient form, which was pagan; and yet it is, it is truly the seat of idolatry and tyranny, though of another sort and form. It ascends out of the bottomless pit (idolatry and cruelty are the issue and product of hell), and it shall return thither and go into perdition. 2. This beast has seven heads, which have a double signification. (1.) Seven mountains--the seven hills on which Rome stands; and (2.) Seven kings--seven sorts of government. Rome was governed by kings, consuls, tribunes, decemviri, dictators, emperors who were pagan, and emperors who were Christian. Five of these were extinct when this prophecy was written; one was then in being, that is, the pagan emperor; and the other, that is, the Christian emperor, was yet to come, v. 10. This beast, the papacy, makes an eighth governor, and sets up idolatry again. 3. This beast had ten horns; which are said to be ten kings which have as yet received no kingdoms; as yet, that is, as some, shall not rise up till the Roman empire be broken in pieces; or, as others, shall not rise up till near the end of antichrist's reign, and so shall reign but as it were one hour with her, but shall for that time be very unanimous and very zealous in that interest, and entirely devoted to it, divesting themselves of their prerogatives and revenues (things so dear to princes), out of an unaccountable fondness for the papacy.

Matthew Poole (written by another):

    Rev 17:9. And here is the mind which hath wisdom; that is, here is that which requireth a mind endued with spiritual wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth; the seven heads which he saw the beast with, signified seven mountains or hills upon which Rome is situated; they were named before: see the notes on Rev 17:3. They tell us now Rome is situated in Campo Martio. Resp. Whatever it now is, certain it is, that in St. John's time it was situated upon them, and they are now within the compass of Rome.

Matthew Poole (written by another who cites his Synopsis) on Rev. 17.3:

    Rev 17:3. So he carried me away in the spirit; that is, being in an ecstasy; see Rev 4:2; whether in the body or out of the body he could not tell, as Paul expresseth it, 2 Cor 12:2. Into the wilderness; a place not, or not much, inhabited, either as fittest for contemplation, or to signify that this great whore, which had driven the spouse of Christ into the wilderness, should shortly herself come into her state, according to the fate of old Babylon, Jer 1:13. And I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast; the great whore, mentioned Rev 17:1, upheld by the Roman emperors. Full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns; the same which is mentioned Rev 13:1: see the notes there. Here a great question ariseth, who this woman is, or, (which is the same, as appeareth by Rev 17:5,) what city is meant by Babylon, mentioned Rev 17:5; a question (as Mr. Pool noteth) of high concernment; for whoever this woman is, or whatsoever this Babylon signifieth, the people of God are upon pain of damnation admonished to avoid any communion with her, and to come out of her, Rev 14:9-10. Mr. Pool hath diligently collected into his Latin Synopsis all opinions about it, and showed what is to be said for or against them; I will give my reader the sum of what he saith.
    1. Some would have it to be the whole world of wicked men. Against this it is said: (1.) That John speaks here of a certain great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth, Rev 17:18: this cannot be meant of the wicked world. (2.) The world of wicked men are those inhabitants of the earth, whom this woman made drunk with the wine of her fornication: now she that made them drunk, and those that were made drunk, cannot be the same. (3.) This woman sitteth on seven mountains, Rev 17:9, and so do not all the wicked of the world. (4.) We are commanded to come out of this Babylon, but we are not obliged to go out of the world.
    2. Others would have this woman, or this Babylon, to be the old Chaldean Babylon. But, (1.) Where then is the mystery, mentioned Rev 17:5? (2.) The Babylon here mentioned, is by all agreed to be the seat of antichrist; so was that never.
    3. The generality agree it to be Rome. Amongst the ancients, Tertullian, Jerome, Ambrose, ~cumenius, Augustine, Eusebius: of later writers, Beda, Aquinas, Salmeron, Pererius, Bellarmine, Lapide, Ribera, (all papists,) besides a multitude of protestant writers. (1.) That city is also like old Babylon for power and greatness, for oppression and tyranny of and over God's Israel; besides, the city here mentioned is described by two characters, agreeing to none but Rome, Rev 17:9, dwelling upon seven hills. (2.) Reigning over the kings of the earth: for the first Rome is the only city in the world founded upon seven hills, and famed for it by its old poets, Ovid, Virgil, Horace, Propertius, etc. It is attested to be so founded by Plutarch, Pliny, Dionysius, Halicarnass�us. The names of these hills are known: Palatinus, Quirinalis, Aventinus, Celius, Veminalis, Esquilinus, Capitolinus. Both papist and protestant writers agree that here by Babylon Rome is meant; but they are divided, whether it be to be understood of Rome in its old pagan state, or in its present state, or in a state yet to come.
    4. Some would have it to be Rome in its pagan state; of this mind are Grotius, and Dr. Hammond, and some others. But against this many things are said: (1.) It is manifest that God here describes Rome not as under its sixth head, viz. the pagan emperors, but as it was under its last head, the eighth king, Rev 17:11, as it should ascend out of the bottomless pit, Rev 17:8. (2.) What John saw herein mentioned as a secret about the blood of the saints, which he wondered at; now the pagan emperors' spilling the blood of saints was a thing long since done. (3.) The desolation of the Babylon here mentioned was to be final, never to be repaired, as appears by Rev 18:21-23; but pagan Rome was never made so desolate. (4.) If Rome pagan be here meant, then, after its fall, Rome Christian was the habitation of devils, Rev 18:2. (5.) Rome pagan fell upon our saints with downright blows, not with allurements, making them drunk with the wine of her fornication, as Rev 17:2.
    5. The papists, who grant that by Babylon Rome is meant, would have it to be Rome toward the end of the world, when, they say, Rome shall apostatize from the pope to paganism again; but for this opinion there is no foundation in Scripture, nor the judgment of the ancients, and some of the papists themselves reject it as improbable and detestable.
    6. The generality and best of protestant writers understand by Babylon, and by this woman, Rome, as it is at this day under the conduct of the pope, for which they give these reasons. (1.) Because it cannot be understood of Rome in either of the other notions, as hath been proved. (2.) Because antichrist is to sit in the temple of God, 2 Thess 2:4, as God, therefore not in any pagan city. The mystery of iniquity was working in the apostle's time, but, Rev 17:7, the Roman empire hindered the appearance of antichrist till the popes had wrung Rome out of their hands, and were the sole rulers there; then antichrist showed himself. (3.) Because there is nothing said of this great whore, or this Babylon, but admirably agreeth to Rome in its present state.

Jonathan Edwards:

    Yea it is prophesied, that the seat of this pretended vicar of God, and head of the church, should be the city of Rome itself. It is said expressly, that the spiritual whore, or false church, should have her seat on seven mountains or hills; Rev 17:9, "The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth:" and (Rev 17:18) "The woman which thou sawest, is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth;" which it is certain was at that time the city of Rome. This prophecy also has come to pass.

    It is true, some regard is had in the prophecies to the city of Rome, the city built on seven hills: which being the fountain of all rule and authority in the Roman monarchy, and the capital city of the empire, from whence the whole empire was denominated, and the place where the head of the empire usually resided, was properly used by the angel, (Rev 17:9,18) to show what empire antichrist should rule over, and what city he should usually reside in. And this is all that can be meant by the words of the angel; and not that those streets and walls were such main and essential things in what the prophecy intended by the beast; that when antichrist's dominion ceases in that place, then the beast ceases. For, if so, then it will follow, that the beast had his head wounded to death a second time, and ceased to be, when the popes resided at Avignon in France, for the best part of a century; when not only the popes did not reside in Rome, nor any part of St. Peter's patrimony, nor any part of Italy; but some of them were neither Romans, nor Italians. Though the angel says of the great whore, Rev 17:18, "The woman which thou sawest, is the great city which reigns over the kings of the earth:" yet by the city, in this case, is not meant so much what was contained within those Roman walls, as the Roman empire; as is evident by Rev 11:8, "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt." Here, by that great city, neither Mr. Lowman himself, nor I suppose any other protestant interpreter, understands the city of Rome, strictly speaking, but the Roman monarchy.

Thomas Manton:

    Now this impediment showeth both the time and place of Antichrist; and time and place, next to the nature and state of things, are the best circumstances to discover him. (1.) The place: Antichrist's seat and throne was to be there, where the seat of the Roman empire was; and St. John telleth us it was situated on the city that had seven hills: Rev 17:9, "The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth;" and that is Rome, which is famously taken notice of to be seated on seven hills or mountains. Now Antichrist had not room as long as the seat was filled with the Roman emperor, for this seat could not be filled with two imperial powers at once, especially with such a tyrannical power as that of Antichrist is, exalting itself not only above kings and kingdoms, but {GK}, the august state of the emperors themselves; there was no exalting this chair, till there was a removal of the throne; while the Roman emperor possessed Rome, the seat was full, and till it was void it could not be the seat of Antichrist.

James Durham on Rev. 17.9:

    By woman we [understand] Rome, it is called a city, Verse ult. and it must be such a city as may serve to discover these mountains from other mountains, they are such, saith he, as the chief city of the world sitteth on.

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]" - extracted from https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-woman-on-seven-hills.10465/

 
 "The description of the woman and the beast upon which she sits in 17:7–14 is one of the most difficult passages in the book of Revelation. As John marvels at the vision, an angel says, “I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her” (v. 7).  The angel tells John that the beast he saw “was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction” (v. 8a).  The angel then says to John, “This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while.  As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction” (vv. 9–11).

This text is important not only in the context of John’s vision, but also because it is potentially relevant to the question of the date of the book.[i]  We will put off discussion of verse 8a until we get to verse 11.  In verse 9, the angel says that the seven heads “are seven mountains on which the woman is seated.”  The reference to Rome as the city built on seven hills was widely used during the first century.[ii]  It would have been familiar to John’s audience.  There is no reason, then, to suppose that John meant anything other than Rome by the use of this description.[iii]

In verse 10, the angel tells John that the seven heads also symbolize seven kings, “five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while.”  The identity of these “kings” has been the source of endless debate.  Part of the difficulty is due to the unwillingness of some commentators to even consider the possibility that the book was written prior to A.D. 70.  Some grant that the solution would be much simpler had John written the book earlier, but they do not consider an early date to be plausible.[iv]  If an early date for the book is not ruled out automatically, it is possible to make much more sense out of this obscure text.
The “seven heads” of the beast are seven kings.  If the beast is the Roman Empire, then it would seem clear that the seven kings are seven emperors of Rome.  The difficulty arises when we attempt to figure out which seven emperors John has in mind.  Part of the problem concerns the starting point.  The Roman author Suetonius began his list of emperors with Julius Caesar.  Tacitus, on the other hand, appears to have considered Augustus the first Roman emperor.[v]  If we begin with Julius and count consecutively, then the five kings who have fallen would be Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius Caligula, and Claudius.  The sixth king, the one who is, would then be Nero.  This interpretation is quite possible, and it would place the date of the writing of Revelation sometime in the latter part of Nero’s reign (i.e., A.D. 64–68).[vi] "

- Extracted fromThe Seven Kings of Revelation 17 from Keith Mathison Jun 09, 2010 www.Ligonier.org

 "In the first chapter (vv16,17) Christ is holding in his right hand the seven stars, then He touches John with his right hand. Did he put down the stars in order to do so? No.

1. God's people are commanded to separate themselves from the whore, not wait until the whore becomes the bride.
Yes, I agree. We are to separate from false churches but it is not as though there are two literal churches, one good and one bad. To say we must come out of the Roman Catholic church into the Protestant church is too simplistic. Today we see the Protestant Church in ruins! "Come out of her" is the call to be semper reformanda -always reforming. I'm sure you agree. The remnant will always continue to separate and be separatist.

2. The whore persecuted God's people, showing that there is some distinction between the two, despite the fact that some of them are within the whore.
Yes, I agree there is a distinction. The visible church is all the people who name the name of Christ. Christians have persecuted the elect 'with the best of them' thoughout history. "There are many sheep without and many wolves within." I assume every congregation has unsaved people in it who refuse to abandon their own righteousness.

3. The whore will be justly punished by God. This is not a persecution by the nations which Christians receive (since it is the whore who is getting this, which according to your supposition is still the church prior to conversion; it would have to be the bride to be "persecution"). Verse 8 is entirely too clear on the matter.
Jehovah's witnesses are persecuted. Mormons are persecuted. They would be counted as part of the whore along with those of us who are hypocrites not trusting in the work of Christ alone. The heathen see all who name the name of Christ as Christians but the true body of Christ is within the visible church. By the way, I'm not saying the church is converted en masse. I'm saying the true believers are separated out at the general resurrection to ascend into heaven.
To verse 8: Judgment begins in the house of the Lord. He will try our doctrine by fire. (1Cor 3) How much MORE will God judge those who take His name in vain?

4. The body of Christ IS one -- one pure, virgin bride, not a bride together with a whore. There is no indication from the Apocalypse itself that the whore becomes the bride; especially given the fact that the whore gets wiped out for persecuting the true church.
I agree but the error lies in being overly logical in seeing two women. The pure virgin is composed of the remnant subset inside the larger visible church. There is one body of Christ, one woman transformed. She is transformed by removing the dross of unbelievers on the last day. There were 5 wise virgins and 5 foolish virgins; but they were all virgins.
The whore would be the 10 virgins.
The bride would be the wise 5.

Did Christ have two right hands? Rev 1:16,17"  

- Extracted fromThe Woman on Seven Hills

Discussion in 'Revelation & Eschatology' started by Scott, Nov 28, 2005.- 

 

TO BE CONTINUED...

CONSTANTINE ANTICHRIST 3 ( The Little Horn - Daniel 7:8)

The Little Horn

'Let us carefully consider some suggestions that have been made regarding the identity of the little horn in Daniel’s vision:

(1) Religious modernism contends that the little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.), the Syrian rogue who so viciously persecuted the Jews during the interbiblical era (cf. Daniel 8:9-14, 23-27).

Because the prophetical sections of Daniel are so very precise, modernists, rejecting the concept of predictive prophecy, allege that the book of Daniel is the composition of some unknown writer of the second century B.C. Thus, according to this theory, the document addresses the past, not the future. The persecuting little horn is therefore conveniently identified with Antiochus. This position was apparently first set forth by Porphyry, a third-century A.D. philosopher, who sought to discredit the Bible as an inspired revelation.

This theory simply will not work. The fact is, Antiochus lived in the period of Greek supremacy. He was dead a hundred years before the fourth beast (the Roman Empire) came into power—out of which Daniel’s little horn arose.

That aside, there is clear and convincing evidence that the book of Daniel was written in the sixth century B.C., not in the second century (see Jackson 1990, 30, 31). (Note: the little horn of Daniel 8:9ff is a reference to Antiochus; but this must not be confused with the little horn of chapter seven.)

Attempts have been made, to identify the beasts of Daniel’s dream in the following fashion: Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Greeks—so as to allow the little horn to appear in the fourth (or Greek) period. It is not, however, a legitimate procedure to separate the Medo-Persian Empire into two segments. There simply was no Median empire, separate from the Persian regime, which could be called a world power (Rose and Fuller 1981, 336).

(2) Modem millennialists assert that the little horn of Daniel’s dream is the “Antichrist,” who soon will make his presence known to initiate a persecution against the church. Allegedly, this will introduce the tribulation period which is supposed to precede the return of Christ and his one-thousand-year reign from Jerusalem (see Pentecost 1985, 1355).

There are insurmountable obstacles to this view. In the first place, the entire premillennial scheme is without biblical proof, including the Antichrist-tribulation components. No interpretation of Daniel 7 is legitimate which depends upon a theological theory that is so at variance with fundamental Bible truth—which the premillennial theory clearly is (see Examining Premillennialism.)

Second, the little horn of Daniel’s vision arose from the remnants of the Roman Empire, which have lain in the dust of antiquity for more than one thousand years. The commencement of the little horn’s power is thus ancient, not modern. Sensing the difficulty in this fact, millennialists allege that the old Roman Empire will be revived in these modem times to accommodate Bible prophecy! There is absolutely no support for this incredible speculation.

(Note: Some who are not of the premillennial persuasion believe that the little horn is a sinister Antichrist personality who will appear shortly before the Lord’s return. For reasons which will be apparent subsequently, we reject this view as well.)

(3) Some would argue that the little horn represents one of the pagan Roman rulers (e.g., Julius Caesar or Vespasian). A great variety of biblical scholars, however, have forcefully contended that Daniel’s little horn and Paul’s “man of sin” (2 Thessalonians 2:3ff) appear to represent the same hostile force. This was the general view of the “church fathers” (see Newton, 462, 463), and such has been maintained in modern times. Since the “man of sin” is obviously a part of “the falling away” from the primitive faith, the opposing force would seem to be a religious one (see Workman 1988, 414-436).

(4) An interpretation which has fallen on hard times in this modern ecumenical age, but which was strongly defended by scholars of the Reformation heritage (e.g., Adam Clarke and Albert Barnes), is the concept that Daniel’s little horn symbolized the papal dynasty. A few conservative scholars defend this position even yet (Leupold 1969, 323).

This was also the leading view of the Restoration leaders. When Alexander Campbell met John Purcell in debate (1837), he affirmed that the Roman Catholic Church “is the Babylon of John, the Man of Sin of Paul, and the Empire of the Youngest Horn of Daniel’s Sea Monster” (1914, 281ff).

Consider the following arguments which lend support to this proposition:

(a) Prior to the eighth century A.D., the authority of the Catholic popes was limited to church affairs. However, near the middle of that century, the Roman pontiff began to acquire political territories, thus transforming the Church into a politico-ecclesiastical organism.

In A.D. 755, Pepin, a French ruler, conferred upon pope Stephen III the principality of Ravenna. Later, in 774, Charles the Great, monarch of France, conquered the kingdom of the Lombards and gave their dominion to Pope Adrian I. Finally, in 817, Lewis the Pious, son of Charles the Great, confirmed the state of Rome to Pope Paschal I.

The Roman church was the most powerful force in Europe—a little horn that became more stout than its fellows. By the time Cardinal Hildebrand became pope (1073), he was affirming that the Roman pontiff should not only be the universal head of the church, but also the ruler of the world (cf. Newton, 241-245; Sanderson, Lamberton, and McGovern, 334-336; Alzog 1890, 184ff).

(b) The little horn was said to speak “great things” which were “against the Most High.” The blasphemous arrogance of the popes is well-known to students of church history.

Newton cites the following papal claim:

Our Lord God the pope; another God upon earth, king of kings, and lord of lords. The same is the dominion of God and the pope. To believe that our Lord God the pope might not decree, as he decreed, it were a matter of heresy. The power of the pope is greater than all created power, and extends itself to things celestial, terrestrial, and infernal. The pope doeth whatsoever he listeth, even things unlawful, and is more than God (456).

Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), in his inaugural speech, declared, “The successor of St. Peter stands midway between God and man; below God, above man; Judge of all, judged of none” (Hurlbut 1954, 112).

(c) The Roman church, under the authority of its popes, has been a vicious persecutor of those who oppose its apostate doctrines. A Catholic scholar asserts that his own church “can tolerate no strange Churches beside herself” (Pohle 1913, 766). During the Spanish Inquisition (a tribunal established by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages for the purpose of suppressing error) thousands were burned alive for their alleged heresies against the Church.

During the infamous massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day (August 24, 1572) somewhere between twenty thousand and one hundred thousand Protestants were killed near Paris. A Catholic historian admits: “On 8 September a procession of thanksgiving took place in Rome, and the pope, in a prayer after mass, thanked God for having ‘granted the Catholic people a glorious triumph over a perfidious race’” (Goyau 1913, 337).

(d) The little horn would alter the “times and the law” of God. According to Catholic dogma, ecclesiastical authority and tradition carry as much weight, if not more, than the word of God itself (see Attwater 1961, 41). Thus, the Church feels free to change or make religious law as it sees fit. History is replete with examples of the papacy instituting holy seasons or days, and changing various elements of the law of Christ (e.g., celibacy, adoration of images, saint worship, transubstantiation).

(e) The saints were to be under the oppressive power of the little horn for “a time, times, and half a time.” Clearly, this is the most difficult aspect of the prophecy. A number of novel views have been suggested as to the significance of this expression. The most reasonable conclusion is that it likely represents three and a half year’s worth of prophetic days, i.e., a total of 1,260 days, symbolizing 1,260 years (as in the case of the seventy weeks of chapter nine [cf. Revelation 12:6, 14; 13:5]).

The knotty part is knowing what period of history it actually covers. It would seem to point to that era when Roman Catholicism almost completely dominated and suppressed the religious world, until its power was broken by the influence of the Reformation movement. It is not necessary to look for precise dates for the beginning and ending of this period.

In conclusion, we believe that, taking all factors into consideration, there is no entity in history that so fits the description of the little horn of Daniel 7 as that of the papal dynasty of the Roman Catholic Church." - extracted from https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/184-little-horn-of-daniels-sea-beast-the



"Byzantine Emperor Constantine the Great is nicely featured by some writers as the first Emperor, who was Christianized and the one who stopped Christian persecution, which was brutally done by his predecessor Roman Emperor Diocletian. However, if Daniel 7 is thoroughly reviewed by relating it to history, it will show that he was actually the little horn prophesied in Daniel 7:8.

In Daniel 7:6, the third beast, which looks like a leopard, is described as having four wings and four heads, which was given authority to rule. It states:

6 “After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

This part of the prophecy squarely refers to what happened to the Roman Empire during the time of Emperor Diocletian, when Tetrarchy or the “Rule of Four” ruled the Empire. In short, the third beast described in Daniel 7:6 is the Roman Empire.

Wikipedia is quoted as follows:

The term tetrarchy (from the Greek: τετραρχία, tetrarchia, “leadership of four [people]”)[a] describes any form of government where power is divided among four individuals, but in modern usage usually refers to the system instituted by Roman Emperor Diocletian in 293, marking the end of the Crisis of the Third Century and the recovery of the Roman Empire. This tetrarchy lasted until c. 313, when internecine conflict eliminated most of the claimants to power, leaving Constantine in control of the western half of the empire, and Licinius in control of the eastern half.

Emperor Diocletian in 286 appointed Maximian as Augustus, co-emperor and on March 1, 293, he further appointed two other co-rulers, namely Galerius and Contantius Chlorus, who was the Father of Constantine, as Caesars, junior co-emperors, to rule the Roman Empire. On July 25 304, Constantine was proclaimed Augustus upon the death of his father and became the sole ruler of the western empire after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312. In 324, he defeated the eastern Augustus Licinius and re-united the empire under his rule.

Based on history, there was uprooting of the other three rulers or ‘horns’ in the Tetrarchy by ‘little horn’ or successor Constantine making him fit to descriptions in Daniel 7:8, which states as follows:

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

Also, it may appear that Constantine was in succession in the Roman Empire. However his rule started what historians call as establishment of Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire, making it distinct or different from predecessor Roman Empire. Hence, his empire is the fourth beast described in Daniel 7:7, which states as follows:

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

The fourth beast is described to be ‘terrifying and frightening and very powerful’, with ‘large iron teeth’, ‘crushing and devouring its victim and trampling underfoot whatever was left’, ‘different from all the former beasts’ and has ‘ten horns’. These descriptions fit the empire under Constantine and his successors, where Roman Catholicism and its Papacy evolved into being. Firstly, it has to be noted that “Diocletianic Persecution (303–11), the empire’s last, largest, and bloodiest official persecution of Christianity, failed to eliminate Christianity in the empire“. Hence, the Roman Empire failed to qualify as terrifying and frightening and very powerful to crush the early Christian movements. However, this is not in the case of the Byzantine Empire thereby making it very different from all the former beasts in terms of strategy.

 

Under Constantine, he treated the enemy Christians like friends to finally crush or defeat them by 1) proclaiming first the toleration of Christianity, 2) convening and presiding over the First Council of Nicaea and 3) confirming the influence of the Emperor over Christians by building churches in Constantinople. In short, the remaining early Christian movement was defeated by him by way of instilling his own type of Christianity-the Constantinian Christianity.

Wikipedia (History of Papacy under Constantine) is quoted:

The legend surrounding the victory of Constantine I in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312) relates his vision of the Chi Rho and the text in hoc signo vinces in the sky, and reproducing this symbol on the shields of his troops. The following year, Constantine and Licinius proclaimed the toleration of Christianity with the Edict of Milan, and in 325, Constantine convened and presided over the First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council. None of this, however, has particularly much to do with the pope, who did not even attend the Council; in fact, the first bishop of Rome to be contemporaneously referred to as “pope” is Damasus I (366–84).[7] Moreover, between 324 and 330, Constantine built Constantinople as a new capital for the empire, and—with no apologies to the Roman community of Christians—relocated key Roman families and translated many Christian relics to the new churches he built from the ground up.[citation needed]

Also, from the above scheme, Emperor Constantine is indeed shown to be very different from the previous emperors because while he tolerated Christianity, he was able to institute in the Christian movement the Roman cult on veneration of the sun, adoption of the sign of the beast, which is the cross, revision of the scripture through Greek translation, and sustaining of Roman idolatrous practices, which are still subsisting today in Catholicism and Christianity through the Sunday worship, which is in violation of the Sabbath law, adoption of the sign of the beast as the sign of Christianity, adoption of the revised bible and adoption of images, e.g, alleged Holy Face, Shroud of Turin, which are likewise in violation of the Ten Commandments.

Further, the ‘ten horns’ that is stated in the verse refers to the ten emperors who succeeded Emperor Constantine I, who carried the name in honor of Constantine. These emperors were Tiberius II Constantine, Constantine III, Constantine IV “the Bearded”, Constantine V “the Dung-named”, Constantine VI, Constantine VII “the Purple-born”, Constantine VIII “the Purple-born”, Constantine IX Monomachos, Constantine X Doukas, and Constantine XI Palaiologos.

Finally, therefore, while the history, which is usually inclined towards the prevailing political power, may paint the good reputation of Roman Catholicism and Christianity despite their foundation were greatly influenced by Emperor Constantine, the same will not stand scrutiny from the words of the messiah himself on good and bad fruits, which states as follows:

33To have good fruit, you must have a healthy tree; if you have poor tree, you will have bad fruit. A tree is known by the fruit it bears. 34You snakes-how can you say good things when you are evil. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35A good person brings good things out of a treasure of good things; a bad person brings bad things out of treasure of bad things.

36You can be sure that on the Judgment Day, you will have to give account for every useless word that you have ever spoken. 37Your words will be used to judge you -to declare you either innocent or guilty.(Matthew 12:33-37,TEV)

Due to the fruits by way of institutionalizing the Roman cult on veneration of the sun, adoption of the sign of the beast, which is the cross, revision of the scripture through Greek translation, and sustaining of Roman idolatrous practices in Catholicism and Christianity, Catholics and Christians can not escape judgment on their institution as establishments that were established by the little horn described in Daniel 7:8." -

Source: https://wordatthenet.com/2018/01/06/who-is-the-little-horn-in-daniel-78/

TO BE CONTINUED...

CONSTANTINE ANTICHRIST Part 2 ( MYSTERY RELIGION : MITHRAISM )

This is part 2 of CONSTANTINE ANTICHRIST. 

In this part you will see the video entitled The Deception of Constantine. This video is about "  how Constantine was used during the early 4th Century to create a New One World Religion based on Nimrod's Mystery Occult Babylonian Religion but Roman version populary know as MITHRAISM and mixing Judeo-Christian faith, which would give us an idea where Romanism really started. This is an excellent documentary roughly 45 minutes long documentary about Constantine based on archaelogical evidences and ancient writings portraying on how Constantine pretended to be a follower of Jesus of Nazareth. This documentary will take us to the true identity of Constantine, including what really is the spirit behind his fabrication of a New Roman Religion. Historical writings tells us that Constantine and Licinius issued the EDICT of MILAN that legalized Christianity and became the Offical Religion of the Roman Empire, hence Constantine became the First Emperor (First POPE?) of the Roman Catholic Empire and was also given honorary title and office of a bishop." - The Deception of Constantine:The beginnings Romanism.(Youtube)


   

Egyptian Worship of Mithra:

 

"Mitanni Aryans were the first to introduce Mithra to Egyptian Pharaohs that allowed them to incorporate into their earlier pagan worship of Osiris and Amun. The “Ra” or “Re” was the designated ancient Egyptian solar deity. By the Fifth Dynasty, Mitra or Mithra had emerged as a major god in ancient Egyptian religion, identified primarily with the midday sun. The meaning of the name “Ra” may be uncertain, but it is thought that it is a variant of or linked to Persian words like “Rau”, a 'creative power' and 'creator' of the earth, that is sun, the star of our planetary system. The major cult centre of “Ra” was located at ancient Heliopolis of Egypt or land of Khemit where he was labeled as the local sun-god “Atum” or “Atum-Ra. In later Egyptian dynastic times, Ra was merged with the god Horus, as “Re-Horakhty” and even “Osiris”.

 

Introduction of Central Asian cult of Mithra to Roman Europe:

The Persian’s Expansion To Greece and later on followed up by Alexander’s conquest allowed Mithra to meet and merge in union with Hellenist pantheons along with Egyptian God- Goddess. This cross cultural continuum existed in all these territories when Roman arrived.

When Persian ruled Central Asia all the way to Anatolia, they brought with them the worship of Mithra that was peaceful in nature but initially involved the animal sacrifice. The local habitants were Phrygians, Ionian Greeks and other Asian Semite tribes. The Romans attributed their association to “Mithraic Mysteries” to the Persians. The territories of Judah and Anatolia that Romans had conquered from Greeks where already practitioner of Judaism, Mithraism or Zoroaster’s religion (similar to Mithra). The Romans had their own pagan worships that included the worship of Roman emperors, so were early Greeks. The Roman learned that Anatolians were worshippers of Mithra along with other cults of Greece and  Egypt. The cross cultural exchange introduced Indian-Iranian Mithra to the Ionian, the Lydian, the Phrygian, the Thracian, and the Celtic-Gaul of Anatolia who incorporated them with their chosen pagan gods.

Although Christianity only took hold as an official religion under Emperor Constantine, Constantine himself was a follower of Mithraism and remains so and by some account through his life until he was baptized as Christian at his death bed. The Yazata of Persian was interpreted as “angels” in Christianity. According to Martin Haug, the “Amesha Spentas” of Zaruashtra’s became the arch-angel Gabriel of Christianity. The Mithraic Mystery thus became the deviant form of religion practiced in Central Asian states due to previous dominance of the Achemenians Persians and then followed by Indo-Greeks Seleucid rulers of Bactria.

The Mithraism was introduced to European Roman world through Roman soldiers who had intermarried with locals Anatolians and Asian Semite and Jews. This was further facilitated by prolonged absence of soldiers from home so they took local mistress. Simultaneously, they sent slaves and trader-visitors from conquered territories of Asia to Rome. The trade link with Persia and India also helped introduce the tradition and rituals of Mithra. The expansion of Roman Empire all the way to Anatolia, Greece and Egypt brought these new cultural dimensions to ancient Rome.

Mythology of Mithra in Roman world and its similarities with Jesus’s story:

The name of the Persian god Mithra (proto-Indo-Iranian Mitra), adapted by the Greek as Helios and Attis, assumed a new and distinctive imagery on Greek model in the Roman world. The Writers of the Roman Empire world referred to this as a mystery religion by phrases which can be anglicized as “Mysteries of Mithras” or “Mysteries of the Persians” or “Mysteries of Magi”, The high priest of Persian Mithra introduced the magic of healing through ancient knowledge known from India, Persia and east. The name of this commingled religion in an altered form was dubbed as “Roman Mithraism” due to its practice, rituals and presence in Rome proper. We see various depiction of Buddha in Caucasian form as well as Mongolian form." - extracted from Origination of Christianity from Sun worshiping Tradition Of Indian and Persian-Mithraism: By: Bipin R. Shah - read the whole article HERE.

 

Reevaluating Constantine

"Despite his supervisory role in the Council of Nicea and his self-appointed role as bishop, Constantine postponed his baptism until 337, when he was on his deathbed. 

Baptized or not, he played a major role in shaping traditional Christianity. While Eusebius looked approvingly on Constantine’s actions as a demonstration of true Christianity, more reflection on his part might have produced a different perspective. 

Reevaluating both Christian and pagan sources of that time, we might rather conclude that Constantine used Christianity to serve his own purpose of unifying and controlling his empire. The early New Testament church in apostolic times existed apart from the empire. Constantine made his Roman Christian church hostage to the state so that now it would serve the needs of emperor and empire. 

By the end of the fourth century, that church was modeled on the political structures of the Roman Empire it served, and not on the Bible. It assumed the power of the state to establish “right thinking” on the part of its members. Orthodoxy became the order of the day. While pagans and diverse Christian groups continued to coexist and to shape ecclesiastical debates into the fifth century, a powerful organization had been created that would control and expunge from the empire any religious elements deemed unorthodox." -  Vision

 to be continued...