It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Daniel; The burning fiery furnace.

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:03 PM
I come now to the story of the “burning, fiery furnace”.
This chapter in Daniel always reminds me of our Welsh-born teacher, Mr. Rees.
That’s because the story told in the AV translation is full of sonorous repetitions (like “burning, fiery furnace”) which sound even more impressive when they’re expressed in a strong Welsh lilt.
So whenever this passage came up in Assembly, the Welshman was deputed to read it.
Mr. Rees is the voice I’m hearing as I read those names, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

The story is another illustration of Daniel’s central theme.
As I’ve said before, this theme resembles the old conundrum; “What happens when an Irresistible Force meets an Immovable Object?”
The briefest way of answering that question is to say that “One of them is exposed as a fraud” (because they can’t both exist at the same time).
In the same way, the central theme of Daniel can be described as “What happens when the will of God meets the will of a ruler who thinks he’s God?”

In these early chapters, the ruler in question is Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon.
The first chapter told the story of the four young men who were chosen for training.
The second chapter was a sequel, continuing the story of Daniel himself.
This third chapter is about the others, under their Babylonian names- Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

The king’s will

The king’s will is expressed in the erection of “an image of gold”, which must be worshipped by his whole people.

I would assume this means a human statue, like the statue seen in the king’s dream in the previous chapter.
The proportions are not quite right, of course , for the human body.
The statue is at least twice as tall as it ought to be, in proportion to the width.
(Measure yourself- are you ten times taller than you are broad?)
But the extra height would make the statue more impressive and more visible, and the foreshortening effect on a ninety foot statue might make the disproportion less obvious.

In any case, more to the point, it means that both measurements, the six cubits and the sixty, contain the symbolic number “6”.
This number is best understood as the number that belongs to humanity, just as “7” is the number that belongs to God, since humanity was born on the “sixth day” of the Creation story in Genesis.
So this image would then represent the worship of humanity, or at least human authority- which is probably also the meaning of the “666” reference in Revelation ch13.

The statue seen in the second chapter represented the human kingdoms of the world, and this statue, in the same way, surely represents human kingship.

In the first chapter of Daniel, we saw an early stage of the developing conflict
As I observed when I looked at the story, the king was quite unconscious that his commands could have any impact on Daniel’s religion.
He simply pursued his own will, and the clash was the natural result.

This chapter represents a second stage, because the act of will is much more conscious.
The king is deliberately setting up an object of worship and making it compulsory.
There are two things, though, which are still not happening.
The king is neither openly directing worship towards himself, nor actively forbidding any other kind of worship. These developments are left for a later chapter.

Not many rulers take their claims beyond the second stage.
Even the Roman empire was little interested in banning religions, as long as people were also willing to burn incense in the Emperor’s name.
Since the Emperor represented the Empire, the practice of “incense to the Emperor” was effectively setting up the state itself as an object of worship, like the statue in this chapter.
Even Revelation, for a time (in the first part of ch17) has the Beast and
idolatrous “Babylon” working together, which suggests the same thing- one object of worship made compulsory, combined with the acceptance of other forms of worship.
Nevertheless, the demand for obedient worship is quite enough, by itself, to spark off a conflict.

God’s will

God’s will is expressed in the first commandment; you shall have no other gods but me.
The young men “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego” (I’m hearing it again) have been given high office in the provincial government, but the golden image is such a clear-cut example of “any other gods” that they don’t have any choice.
They must disregard the king’s command.

God’s will prevails

The conflict begins when the king receives information against them.
We see the role of the “accuser”; people in the province are denouncing their disobedience to the king’s commands, just as Satan is supposed to denounce human sins to God. We may suspect the informers of having mixed motives, including ambitious jealousy.

Nebuchadnezzar threatens them with execution in the “burning, fiery furnace” and asks the very pertinent question; “Who is the god that will deliver you out of my hands?”
Probably intended as a rhetorical question, but it gets an answer (something else which annoys people in authority);
“Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning, fiery, furnace; and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king.”

The king is also answered by events.
The three accused men are thrown into the furnace, tightly bound.
They are then seen walking around, quite unharmed, in the company of a fourth figure, described as “like a son of the gods”.

Christians sometimes exercise their minds about the exact status of this figure. Was it an angel? Was it Christ? But Christ could hardly have been present in his incarnate body, which wasn’t yet born. If Christ was there at all, he could only have been present through his representative, or “angel”, just as he’s present through his angel in the first and last chapters of Revelation. I’m not sure there’s much difference between the angel of God and the angel of Christ, and I doubt if the technicality is worth pursuing.

What really matters is the intended message of the fourth figure, that the God of Israel is in some sense “present with” his people, on hand and ready to preserve them.

When Nebuchadnezzar sees the men completely unharmed by the fire, he draws exactly the right conclusions.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are servants of “the Most High God”.
That God is able to deliver his servants who trust in him, when they’re wiling even to give up their lives rather than serve and worship any other god.
And there is no other god who is able to deliver in this way.

So the remarks I made about the first chapter of Daniel will apply to this chapter as well.
The intended message of the chapter is that where God’s people are faithful in obedience to him, when they’re put under pressure, then he will honour their faithfulness and keep them in his protection.

Insofar as Daniel prophecies a future confrontation between believers and the ruling power, this chapter points towards a time when the ruling power tries to impose a religious obligation, one which can’t be reconciled with following the Biblical God.
It encourages believers to stand firm, in those circumstances, and remain faithful, even at the risk of their lives.
Like the book of Revelation, it is “a call for the patient endurance of the saints”.

edit on 25-2-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:02 PM
Interesting you write this....I saw this today...

And read this...

A new unit study, No. 1.12.0 allegedly being taught at the Maine Criminal Justice Academy (MCJA), entitled “Sovereign Citizens” and labeled as Restricted to Law Enforcement, seems to be teaching Maine’s police officers that anyone who believes in the superiority of the Lord God over man and man’s government, or those who espouse the belief that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the Supreme Law of the land, are classified as “Sovereign Citizens” and should be considered potential domestic terrorists.

So, this paradox could be about to unfold before our eyes, what with the OPPT and the government stance against the soverign movement. Which one will be the fraud? Could it be big enough to be a biblical prophecey?

edit on 25-2-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:07 PM
reply to post by Wifibrains

Thank you for that.
I must admit I tend not to watch videos, because of the time factor, but I'm sure some will find it interesting.

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:22 PM
reply to post by DISRAELI

It's very interesting how this guy breaks down this story of the furnace, and may open up another meaning, other than the literal for the bible. I myself believe it is written In a multidimensional manor, and some say as many as seven different levels through allegory and metaphore. Take a short peek if you get 15mins or so between posts.. I'd like to know what you think.

SnF too..

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:25 PM
"“Both measurements contain the symbolic number “6”. "

That is why translations which simply convert these measurements into the equivalent modern measurements, and thus lose sight of the symbolism, are unhelpful.
Another argument against paraphrase translation.

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:36 PM
This thread is the sequel to the following two threads;
The controversially named Daniel; Let them eat bean-cake
And the more conventional Daniel; The stone and the statue

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:01 PM
I’m not sure there is much to be gained from enquiring why Daniel was not accused along with the others.
Possible explanations include;
The literary- The first chapter introduced four young men. We’ve already had a story about Daniel, so now is the time for a story about the others.
The “critical”- The chapter was originally an autonomous story about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, before they were associated with Daniel in the tradition.
The “realistic”- Daniel’s prestige was already so high after the previous chapter that he was unassailable at court, whereas the others were vulnerable to the jealousies of rivals at their own provincial level of government.
Whatever the reason, I think anyone trying to draw conclusions about Daniel’s character (“He must have been there! He must have bowed!”) is reading into the absence of his name much more than the author intended.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:03 PM
"The accusers"

History suggests that “informers” play an important part in any persecution.
The earliest actions of the Roman authorities against the Christians were dependent on “information given” (DELATIO).
Ironically, in the light of this chapter, much of this information was allegedly coming from the Jews. They were in a position to point out that gentile Christians, not sacrificing to the Emperor, were trying to get away with exploiting a purely Jewish privilege. That would be why the “letters to the seven churches” associate the Jews with the persecuting power of “Satan” (Revelation ch.2 v9, ch.3 v9).

Similarly the communists probably found privately motivated “informing” just as useful as their paid agents.
We should expect this to be a feature of any future persecution of the church.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:06 PM

Revelation has the Beast and idolatrous Babylon working together, which suggest one compulsory object of worship combined with the acceptance of other forms of worship

Someone looking at the current phenomenon of “New Age” might think that the multifarious material for “idolatrous Babylon” is already in place, and all that is necessary to complete the picture is the arrival of the Beast.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:01 PM
For information;

The next thread in this series will be on the fourth chapter; "The madness of kings".

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:10 AM
reply to post by DISRAELI

You have done a good job bringing up the parallelisms of this story and Revelation where we clearly see the link of people being obligated to worship something (bow down to the golden statue) just as they are forced to worship something (the image of the beast) in Revelation 13. God is using this story to give us important insights to what the final test will be about by studying similar circumstances.

What we can deduce from this story is that it was a valid test of ones allegiance to God because it directly related to a couple of God's commandments from the Divine Law which everyone who acknowledges God is meant to keep.

Although the 666 reference in this passage of Daniel does not correspond to that of Revelation where it is the number of a man's name, it still draws the attention of the reader to see the parallel to the Revelation account.

Other interesting parallels we can draw from Revelation is the reference to in ones hand or forehead, either talking about the beast's mark or God's seal/mark and also the reference to the 7 plagues.

The plagues in Revelation are a parallel to the plague on the Egyptians during the Exodus. The reason that the plagues fell on the Egyptians was that the Pharaoh would not let them go. Would not let them go do what though?

Exodus 5:5 we see why. Pharaoh says, "You make them rest from their labor" (KJV). The word Pharaoh used for rest is 'shabbat' (Strong's #7673) the word which is also found used in Genesis 2:2. Therefore the Hebrews were endeavoring to keep the commands of God by keeping the Sabbath day holy.

Thus another instance is drawn to Revelation for the final test involving one of God's commandments of the Divine Law.

in your hand or forehead
This turn of phrase is actually found in the OT in referring to God's commandments

Deuteronomy 6:
4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:
5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes[foreheads, NIV 1984 edition].

Deuteronomy 11:8 Therefore you shall keep every commandment that I have commanded you today...
...18 Therefore you shall lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes [foreheads, NIV 1984 edition]

Exodus 13: 9 (and verse16) And it shall be for a sign unto you upon your hand, and for a memorial before your eyes, that the LORD'S law may be in your mouth: for with a strong hand has the LORD brought you out of Egypt.

Here we have multiple references of hand and forehead being associated with God's Law or putting God's Law into your actions and aligning it with your thoughts.

So what does the real 666 man (Vicarius Filli Dei) say is his mark?

Sunday is our mark of authority...the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.” — Catholic Record of London, Ontario, September 1, 1923.

“Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday Sabbath to Sunday) was her act...And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things.” — H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons

What Does the Beast power say keeping its 'Mark' means?

“Protestants...accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change...But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that...In observing the Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope.” — Our Sunday Visitor, February 15, 1950.

“It was the Catholic church which...has transferred this rest to Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Therefore the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the (Catholic) church.” — Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today, p. 213.

Thus taking the beast's mark is worshiping the image of the beast (the Pope) as your authority above God.

So what is God’s mark? Is it anyway related to a Commandment from the Divine Law or associated with a day?

Ezekiel 20:12
Moreover also I gave [5414] them my sabbaths, [7676] to be a sign [0226] between me and them, that they might know [3045] that I [am] the LORD [3068] that sanctify [6942] them.

Ezekiel 20:20
And hallow [6942] my sabbaths; [7676] and they shall be a sign [0226] between me and you, that ye may know [3045] that I [am] the LORD [3068] your God. [0430]

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign [Hebrew - 'Owth'] between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed

What is the word meaning of this strongs #0226 word?

Hebrew: 'owth', meaning - sign, token, ensign, mark, a distinguishing mark, signal, banner, remembrance

To combat the apostate worship unto the Beast the Bible tells us instead to

Revelation 14:7 ... and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

This turn of phrase is found exactly in the commandment of God relating to His mark

Exodus 20:11 'For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

While Revelation can be a mystery to some, God has shown us the way of what the End Time test will be on by studying scripture and using sound Biblical principles of understanding
edit on 1-3-2013 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

Thank you for those comments.
I've quoted those Deuteronomy references myself when writing about the Mark.

However, I must dispute the claim that the "Catholic church" made the change from Saturday to Sunday.
I know they make that claim for themselves, but that's no reason to believe them.
They could not have done it, because the "Roman Catholic church", in that sense, was not around at the time, and certainly did not have the power that they claim for themselves retrospectively.
The growth of "Roman power" in the church did not start for many centuries later.
That's what I was trying to demonstrate in my thread on
The spring-board of papal power

Obviously it suits their purposes to lay claim on everything that the early church did, because it backs up their attempt to antedate their supremacy and make the false claim that they were leading the church from the beginning.
Obviously it suits other people to go along with that false claim, becasue then they can blame "Rome" for anything they don't like about the early church.
But it is not true.
The practice of honouring the day when Christ rose from the dead was begun by the early church at large, long BEFORE "Rome", in the "dominating church" sense, came into existence.

edit on 1-3-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:51 PM
reply to post by DISRAELI

The practice of honouring the day when Christ rose from the dead was begun by the early church at large, long BEFORE "Rome", in the "dominating church" sense, came into existence.

I would like to see your evidence for this...all I can see in the Bible about Sunday is people eating some bread and on another occasion collecting some money. This had nothing to do with worshiping God. There is no account of any church service after Jesus held on Sunday in the Bible only on Sabbath.

From history we see...

"It seems to have been customary in the Celtic churches of early times, in Ireland as well as Scotland, to keep Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, as a day of rest from labour. They obeyed the fourth commandment literally upon the seventh day of the week." - Professor James C. Moffat, DD., Professor of Church History at Princeton.; from The Church in Scotland, pp140.

"They worked on Sunday, but kept Saturday in a sabbatical manner...These things Margaret abolished" - A History of Scotland from the Roman Occupation, speaking of Queen Margaret's (a Catholic) decree.

"There is much evidence that the Sabbath prevailed in Wales universally until AD 1115, when the first Roman bishop was seated at St. David's. The old Welsh Sabbath-keeping churches did not even then altogether bow the knee to Rome, but fled to their hiding places." - Lewis, Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America, Vol 1, p 29

Josephus , first century Historian, says : "There is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day hath not come!" M'Clathie, Notes and Queries on China and Japan. (edited by Dennys),Vol.4, Nos. 7,8, p.100.

"It was the practice generally of the Eastern Churches; and some churches of the west..For in the church of Millaine [Milan];.. it seems the Saturday was held in farre esteem ..Not that the Eastern churches, or any of the rest which observed that day, were inclined to Iudaisme [Judaism]; but that they came together on the Sabbath day, to worship Iesus [Jesus] Christ the Lord of the Sabbath." , Dr. Heylyn's- History of the Sabbath Part 2, pp. 73,74, London: 1636

"The primitive Christians did keep the Sabbath of the Jews;..therefore the Christians for a long time together, did keep their conventions on the Sabbath, in which some portion of the Law were read: and this continued till the time of the Laodicean council." The Whole Works of Jeremey Taylor, Vol. IX, p416 (R. Heber's Edition, Vol.XII, p.416)

"The gentile Christians observed also the Sabbath." Gieseler's Church History, Vol.1, ch.2, par.30, p.93.

Centuries of the Christian era passed away before Sunday was observed by the Christian church as a sabbath. History does not furnish us with a single proof or indication that it was at any time so observed previous to the sabbatical edict of Constantine in A.D. 321" [Wm Dornville: Examination of Six Texts]

"They know little who do not know that the ancient Sabbath remained and was observed by the Eastern churches three hundred years after our Savior's passion" [Prof. Brerewood: Treatise on the Sabbath]

... the transference to [Sunday] of the sabbatical obligation established by the promulgation of the 4th commandment has no basis whatever either in Holy Scripture or in Christian antiquity" [Wm Smith: Dictionary of Christian Antiquity]

"In the interval between the days of apostles and the conversion of Constantine [4th. cent.] the Christian commonwealth changed its aspect... Rites and ceremonies of which neither Paul nor Peter ever heard crept into use then claimed the rank of divine institutions." [Dr Killen: The Ancient Church]

"The seventh-day Sabbath was solemnized [i.e. observed] by Christ, the Apostles and the primitive Christians - until the Council of Laodicea did, in a manner, quite abolish the observance of it. The Council (A.D. 364) first settled the observance of the Lord's Day" [Wm Prynne: Dissertations on the Lord's Day. Prynne was a 17th century Puritan]

"Since the institution of the Sabbath at the close of creation...there has been an unbroken line of God-loving men who have kept the seventh day of the week.... In the Western Church the seventh day continued to be observed quite generally till the fifth century." [Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge]

These historical sources outline the observance of Christians following the Sabbath (in regard to how Jesus kept it, not the non-biblical onerous version written by men) for many centuries after Jesus in all different parts of the world.
Yes I have noticed your thread on the Papacy and will need to look over it more.

I am currently working on a new thread exposing he myth of Papal authority from Jesus to Peter to Rome which should be a good read.

I need to work on the history aspects myself...but it seems likely that Christianity by-in-large worshiped on Sabbath and this didn't start to change in any significant way until after Constantine or the Laodician Council

We have a command in the NT for us to keep the Sabbath in,

Hebrews 4:9 So then, it remains for the people of God to keep the Sabbath.

Analysis of passage

And the commentaries on the verse that supposedly does away with the Sabbath...Col.2:16,17 is actually about the annual feast days of the ceremonial law with were shadows to Christ which He fulfilled during His life and death. The Sabbath is a memorial to creation and not a shadow of anything. It is actually to be kept in Heaven and on the New Earth (Isaiah 66:22,23) is is apart of the terms of the new covenant (Isaiah 56:6,7 and Isaiah 58:13,14)

While the Catholic church might not have officially caused the change, they are the ones that led other protestants to follow it and have made it a requirement (Law) of their own salvation (for all Christians)

2175 Sunday... for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath.
2176 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church.
2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."117 "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.
2184 The institution of the Lord's Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives
2188 Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church's holy days as legal holidays.
2190 The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday
Catechism of the Catholic church

They also made it apart of their canon law that you are accursed from God if you keep this command

Canon XXIX.

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

While out the other side of their mouth saying:

“Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code (ten commandments) was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai...Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity--love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5)...The (Catholic) Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day...He (God) claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy...”
The Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. 4, “The Ten Commandments”, 1908 edition by Robert Appleton Company; and 1999 Online edition by Kevin Knight, Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

“Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:
“1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.
“2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws...
“It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible.”
— Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Magazine, USA (1975), Chicago, Illinois, “Under the blessing of the Pope Pius XI”.

“Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
“Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
“Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
“Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” — Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd edition, 1957.

The Catholics make it quite clear that to follow the Bible is to follow the Sabbath command and they say exactly when it was changed...4th Century A.D
edit on 1-3-2013 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

There is early evidence that the Christians were honouring the day when Christ rose from the dead (which is all I claimed).
There is also early evidence that they were not honouring the Jewish Sabbath.

On the first point, there is the well-known investigation of the Roman magistrate Pliny, when he reported that the Chriatians admitted to meeting before daybreak, singing a hymn to Christ as God, and taking an oath to abstain from crime, meeting later in the day for a meal.
There is also the early Epistle of Barnabas;
"Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which our Lord Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into heaven"- "Epistle of Barnabas"- 15 v9
On reflection, refraining from work on that day would not have been possible in a pagan environment, because the slaves would have had pagan masters and the free men would have had pagan customers- in just the same way that abstention from work on Sunday becomes more difficult in the present more pagan environment. That sort of thing would have to wait until the pagan control of the empire had been lifted.

So the historical issue is really when they ceased to observe the Jewish Sabbath.
There is good early evidence again in Justin Martyr's "Dialogues with Trypho", when he is arguing the Christian case against the Jews. He points into the mouth of his fictional Jewish opponent the complaint that Christians are not observing the Sabbath. Instead of retorting with "You are misinformed- we do observe it", he sets out to defend the non-observance. His argument is not very spectacular, but at least it confirms what the Christian practice was.- "Dialogue with Trypho"- ch27
(Dates of Justin Martyr- approximately A.D. 114-165)
I am inclined to think that the Gentile converts of Paul's time simply did not pick up the Sabbath practice in the first place, along with failing to adopt other Jewish practices like circumcision and avoidance of blood in meat. Trypho complains about those points as well. So the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was simply dropped by default, rather than by anyone's decision. The more Jewish hostility to Christians grew, the less appealing their special practices would become, from the Christian viewpoint..

On the theology of their failure to follow the Mosaic Law on this point, I would rest on Romans ch7 v7;
"We are discharged from the Law, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit".

Coming back to the original question'
This issue does not really work as a way to identify "Rome" with the Beast, partly because "Rome" had nothing to do with it, and partly because it does not serve to distinguish "Rome" from the rest of the church, when only a very modern minority in the rest of the church have been doing anything different.
The identification needs to be based on other things.

In Protestant tradition, Rome has also been identified with the Harlot of Babylon. Do you follow that tradition? Are you assuming that Rome is both? If so, I would have to point out that the combination does not work, because at the end of Revelation ch17 the Beast sets out to destroy the Harlot. This means they can't be the same thing. Even the relationship at the beginning of the chapter, when one rests on the other, implies a distinction.
If you must identify Rome with a character in Revelation, a better solution would be to make her the Harlot (though I still think the Harlot is a little more complicated than that) and leave the Beast to represent the secular political power.

I applaud your aim of attacking the myth that Papal supremacy goes back to the beginning of the church.
All the more reason not to endorse that myth by taking their own claims at face value.

edit on 2-3-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 09:17 AM
i have long held the view that the statue of gold, commanded to be worshiped by Daniel
was in fact related to the end-times 'Image of the Beast' which the false prophet gives voice & life that All can worship the Beast that still did live after being slain (mortal head wound) this is in Revelations
the lesson, the connection between these two, several thousand years apart 'statues' 'images' have much that is similar, and possibly a clue to the nature of the AC 'beast'

as for the fiery furnace and Meshack/Saddrach/Abendigo walking around in the furnace and 'glowing'
... well the story involve a 'furnace' of nuclear energy... the men were irradiated (thus the glowing/radience of the Angels) the furnace would be like the present day Fukishima (run amok)
[a normal furnace could not be heated 7X hotter, unless a different fuel source were used, just piling on more timbers or coal/tar/pitch won't make a furnace 7X hotter... the reality is that the control rods were removed from the nuclear core so that a higher chain reaction could be achieved...almost going into the 'danger zone' for the reactor which the resident Annuniki had on premisis for the Power needed to sustain the reign of Nebuchadnezzar as a 'god' above his sunjects

edit on 2-3-2013 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 09:26 AM
reply to post by St Udio

At different times in my threads I have argued that this statue and the Beast both represent human authority, so I would not quarrel with identifying them.

I would not read too much into "seven times hotter". Even if this story was a historical event, rather than a kind of parable, the temperature would be a subjective guess, not a thermometer reading. Anyway, "seven times hotter" is only what he wanted the furnace to be. It does not follow that his servants managed to achieve it.

new topics

top topics


log in