Is 666 the Pope? - Part 5 - The 1260 Days

So far in this series, we've seen in Part 3 that the prophecy of the 10 kingdoms does not match with the historical record of the fall of Rome and the rise of the Papacy, like the World Mission Society Church of God claims.  And in Part 4 we saw that the Papacy was not a good fit for the prophecy of the fatal wound.

The results of my investigation are showing that the Pope is NOT the Antichrist according to these prophecies.  But I want to be thorough, so I won't quit yet.  For your reference, here again is where you can find the "Pope-is-Antichrist" teaching.

Continuing to examine the beast of the sea in Revelation 13...
Today, the 1260 days:

Rev. 13:5-7

And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them...

This is similar to Daniel's prophecy:
Dan. 7:25
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.

A time (1 year) and times (2 years) and half a time (half a year) equals 3 1/2 years, which equals 42 months, which equals 1260 days (figuring with the Hebrew calendar of 30 days per month).  This length of time is mentioned 8 times in the Bible regarding the end days (Daniel 7:25, 9:27, and 12:7; Revelation 11:2-3, 13:5, and 12:6,14), which might cause you to wonder if all 8 verses are referring to the same era.   Right now, we'll focus on Rev. 13:5 which tells us the beast was given authority to rule for 1260 days.

In prophecy, a day could refer to a year (Eze. 4:6; Num. 14:34), but it doesn't have to.  In Daniel 4:16, the seven prophetic years were seven actual years, not 2520 years (7x12x30=2520).  Therefore, the 1260 days (3 1/2 years) could prophesy 1260 days or 1260 years.

Remember in Part 4 we saw the many different years that could have been considered fatal wounds to the Papacy?  The question was, why choose the one in 1798?  The answer lies in this prophecy of the 1260 days.

Backing up 1260 years from 1798 gives us the year 538.  This is the year the WMSCOG claims the last of the 3 opposing kingdoms was destroyed by the Papacy (See Part 1), which cemented the Pope's rule.  Therefore, they say, the Pope had a rule of 1260 years, fulfilling this prophecy.

Now the question is, did the Pope's rule begin in 538 with the destruction of the Ostrogoths (as the WMSCOG claims)?

To find the answer, I've been researching the history of the Church and the history of the Gothic War of 535-554.  These are years that could be considered as the mark of the beginning of the reign of the Catholic Church (not counting Matt. 16:18 or Acts 2):

313--Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine, ending the persecution of Christians
325--Council of Nicaea, which the WMSCOG says ended the Passover for the world
551--The Gothic War, Rome finally liberated from the Ostrogoths and placed under Byzantine control
553--Last remnants of the Gothic army defeated
800--Charlemagne, the first emperor crowned by a Pope

Where is the year 538, which the Pope-is-Antichrist teaching clings to?  Maybe we'll find it if we look closer at the Gothic War?  Here's a summary of the war as it relates to Rome...

536--Byzantine (Roman) army enters Rome
537 to 538--First siege of Rome, ends with the Romans maintaining control
546--Second siege of Rome, ends with the Goths in control of Rome
547--Romans regain control of Rome
549--Third siege of Rome, Rome regained by the Goths
551--Goths lose Rome, and the Romans (Byzantines) are able to maintain control until 751

Reading about the Gothic War tells us that the Ostrogoths were definitely NOT destroyed in 538.  In fact, looking at these dates, there is no good reason to choose the year 538!

Why choose the year 538 from this list, and choose the year 1798 from the list of potential fatal wounds?  So that you can force the Catholic Church to fit into the prophecy of 1260 years.

Do you remember when I checked out the WMSCOG's sources in Part 1 and saw that they were fairly close in their dates of the destruction of three kingdoms?  This is the date that was not quite accurate, and now we see the implications of it.

What kind of church plays with dates like this simply to make a prophecy seem to come to fulfillment?  There are two reasons I can think of: ignorance or malicious intent.  Is this what you'd expect from a church supposedly founded by "Father God" and currently run by "Mother God" in the flesh?

There's more to say about the 1260 days next time.

Click here to go on to Part 6.

Is 666 the Pope? - Part 4 - The Deadly Wound

Just as a reminder, we are looking at the first beast in Revelation 13 to see if it matches the Pope (Papacy), and we are examining the claims of the argument about the Pope to see if they are accurate.

Here is the resource, again, where the "Pope-is-Antichrist" teaching has been clearly stated.  Please remember that the WMSCOG is not the only (or the first) group to hold to this teaching.  So even when I write, "the WMSCOG says...," the other Pope-is-Antichrist groups also say something similar (and vice versa).

In Part 3, we saw how the Pope-is-Antichrist teaching of the 10 kingdoms arising out of the fall of Rome is not accurate with the historical record.  Since the Papacy has failed to match up with this prophecy, we already know that the Pope is NOT the Antichrist, as the WMSCOG teaching claims.  But for the sake of completeness (and just in case you are still not convinced), I'll continue with this study.

Continuing in Revelation 13...
Today, the "deadly wound":

Rev. 13:3-4

And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?”

The WMSCOG says that this "deadly wound" happened in 1798 when Pope Pius VI was taken captive by one of Napoleon's generals.  He died in 1799 while still being held by French troops.  It took almost 7 months for the next Pope (Pius VII) to be elected.  The church recovered, and the office of Pope is still occupied today.  Is this the "deadly wound" to the Papacy that was healed?

Read the verses carefully and see that this deadly-but-healed wound was such that "all the world marveled and followed the beast."  It's the kind of thing that would be all over the news and everyone would be talking about the miraculous recovery.  Does "all the world" stand in awe of the Papacy surviving this incident?  Are they amazed at the miraculous recovery and exclaim, "Who is like the Papacy [the beast]?"

What about these other "wounds" to the Papacy?...

Pope St. Hyginus--traditionally thought martyred about AD 140.
Pope St. Pius I--martyred by sword in 155.
Pope St. Anicetus--traditionally thought martyred in 166.
Pope St. Soter--traditionally thought martyred about 174.
Pope St. Eleuterus--traditionally thought martyred in 189.
Pope St. Callixtus--martyred about 223.
Pope St. Cornelius--"died a martyr, through extreme hardship" in 253.
Pope St. Stephen I--martyred by beheading in 257.
Pope St. Sixtus II--martyred by beheading in 258.
Pope St. Caius--legend says was martyred in 296.
(Wikipedia List of Popes)

Do you think those are too early in history to count?  Maybe they were early enough to be uncorrupted Popes (as the WMSCOG might define "corrupt")?

Think of this... the WMSCOG says the church was already becoming corrupted, even that early.  After all, Anicetus (who is on the list) was the Pope the WMSCOG accuses of taking the "lead in abolishing the Passover" in 155--a statement that is incorrect.  (See Part 1)

How about these later "wounds"?...

Pope Benedict VI--seized by Roman nobles, imprisoned and strangled in 974.
The East-West Schism--the division of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054.
[no Pope for 2 years]--A deadlock in voting resulted in no Pope in office from April 1292 to July 1294.
[no Pope for 2 years, again]--Another deadlock in voting resulting in no Pope in office from April 1314 to August 1316.
[no Pope, yet again for 2 years]--No Pope elected from July 1415 to November 1417.
The Protestant Reformation--the "revolt" in which Protestants broke away from the Roman Catholic Church beginning in 1517.
Pope Pius VI--taken prisoner by Napoleon's general in 1798, and died while still expelled from the Papal States in 1799.  (This is the incident used by the WMSCOG.)
Pope Pius VII--expelled from the Papal States by France from 1809-1814.
Pope Pius IX--During his time as Pope, the Papal States were lost to the Kingdom of Italy (1870).

Consider the list.  Any of these instances could easily be viewed as a deadly wound that healed.  Rev. 13:3-4 indicates only one deadly wound--the word for "wound" is singular, and here we have so many to choose from.  Why choose the one in 1798?  I'll examine that next time with Revelation 13:5-7.

In summary:
Yes, the Papacy (Catholic Church) has many "wounds" that could have caused its collapse, and it has survived.  But the prophecy only refers to one, and it is the kind of deadly wound which causes the world to "wonder, marvel, and be amazed" with its healing.  It's not describing a series of difficult struggles.  The Papacy doesn't work well with this prophecy.

Click here to go on to Part 5.

Is 666 the Pope? - Part 3 - The 10 Kingdoms

We established in Part 2 that we are looking at the first beast in Revelation chapter 13 to see if it matches the Pope (Papacy).  We are also examining the claims of the argument about the Pope to see if they are accurate.

Since I haven't yet found the World Mission Society Church of God's full and complete teaching about the Anrichrist online (please send me a link of you know of one), I'm going to refer you to another page (one of many) where the "Pope-is-Antichrist" teaching (as I'll call it) has been clearly stated.  This can be a resource to you as we consider the claims.

Please remember that the WMSCOG is not the only (or the first) group to hold to this teaching.  So even when I write, "the WMSCOG says...," the other Pope-is-Antichrist groups also say something similar (and vice versa).

Let's start at the beginning of Revelation 13 and take it one part at a time.
Today, the "10 Kingdoms":

Rev. 13:1-2
Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name....

This is similar to Daniel's prophecy:
Dan. 7:24

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. 

"This kingdom" is the Roman Empire, which is well agreed upon by Bible scholars.
The WMSCOG says that when the Roman Empire finally fell, it was divided into ten kingdoms, three of which were put down by the Papacy, leaving seven.  Also, those three were "uprooted" because they did not agree with the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The "little horn" of Daniel 7:8 is the Antichrist (the beast) that comes up in the midst of these 10 kingdoms.  The WMSCOG says that since the Pope (Roman Catholic Church) rose to power out of the fall of the Roman Empire, he fits this prophecy.

This "fact" of the 10 kingdoms is well-circulated by the Pope-is-Antichrist groups, but is it historically true?
In other words, can we find the same fact in academic sources, or has it been contrived to fit the argument (which would make it not a fact at all)?

Here's their list of the 10 kingdoms, the last 3 (in green) being the ones who were "subdued":
Visigoths
Anglo-Saxons
Franks
Alemanni
Burgundians
Lombards
Suevi

Heruli

Ostrogoths

Vandals

You might think, "I'm sure they've done their research, so it must be true."  If that's so, then it shouldn't be hard for me to find it too.

I've been looking all over, including reading the source, Ridpath's History of the World, that the WMSCOG trusts enough to quote from in their video (see Part 1).  Why is it so difficult to track down such a statement among legitimate academic sources?  (If you'd like to refer me to one, I'd be happy to hear from you.)

I will show you what I have found...

Here's a map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent in A.D. 117.  You'll see that it covered a very large territory.  However, the 10 kingdoms named in the Pope-is-Antichrist claim are all in western Europe.  The Roman Empire split in the 3rd century, so we'll just look at the Western Roman Empire.

The Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire lasted until 1453, but the Western Roman Empire fell in 476, when Odoacer and the Heruli conquered Romulus Augustulus, the last Western Roman Emperor.  Here's what was left of the empire then (much smaller!).  Here's a map of Europe circa 476, where I count 8 kingdoms in the right area.

Here's another showing Europe in the time of Odoacer (476-493).  In this map you can see the Kingdom of Syagrius, which was the "last Roman foothold in the west" and was conquered by the Franks in 486.  Since it would technically be considered Roman, it shouldn't be counted.  That leaves 9 kingdoms, since the Lombards were not in the correct territory yet.

Perhaps the best map to use is this one of the Germanic kingdoms in 486.  It's before the first of the three kingdoms was subdued, according to the claim (the Heruli in 493).  It's still not quite a match.  It shows the Anglo-Saxons and the Britons as two separate kingdoms, and the Lombards are again not in the right territory.

Maybe we need to read the history books to see what's happening behind the maps.  Since the WMSCOG trusts Ridpath's History of the World enough to use it as a source, I'll use that as well as the internet.  Remember, I want to know that the Roman Empire was divided exactly into the 10 kingdoms listed above, and that only the 3 were subdued.  I also want to know whether or not the kingdoms disagreed with the Catholic Church.  Keeping the same order as the list above...

The Visigoths maintained their kingdom until 711, when they were conquered and confined to just Castile, which they sustained until the Middle Ages.  Their transition from Arianism to Catholicism happened between 577 and 584.  (Ridpath, pages 426-427)

The Anglo-Saxons maintained their hold in England until 1066.  Paganism was replaced by Christianity there in the 7th century.  (Wikipedia Anglo-Saxons)

The Franks held their kingdom for centuries, with the western part of the kingdom eventually becoming France.  Clovis I, the king of the Franks, converted to Catholicism in 496.  (Wikipedia Franks)

The Alemanni were conquered by the Franks in 496.  Then they were subject to the Ostrogoths, and then again under the control of the Franks in 539, where they were a "nominal dukedom."   Alemannia became Christian in the 7th century.  (Wikipedia Alamannia)

The Burgundian kingdom was conquered by the Franks in 534, becoming part of the Frankish Empire.  Burgundy was an Arian kingdom, but by the time they were conquered, many had converted to Catholicism, including the last king.  (Wikipedia Burgundians) 

The Lombards did not cross the Danube into the territory of the Roman Empire until the 540s, invaded Italy in 568 and finally established their kingdom in there in 572.  (Remember that the Western Roman Empire ended in 476, so that's nearly a century later.)  As for religion, the Lombards were mixed--pagan, Arian, and Catholic.  It wasn't until late in the 7th century that most of them were Catholic.  (Wikipedia Lombards)

The kingdom of the Suevi was incorporated into the kingdom of the Visigoths in 585.  The Suevi were mostly Arian until converting to Catholicism in the 560s.  (Wikipedia Suebi)

The Heruli, led by Odoacer, were the ones who brought an end to the Western Roman Empire in 476, and they are shown on the maps as the Kingdom of Odoacer.  They were conquered by the Ostrogoths in 493.  (Ridpath page 408)  Odoacer was an Arian Christian, but had good relations with the Catholic Church.  (Wikipedia Odoacer)

The Vandals were conquered in 534 by Belisarius, a general of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire.  The reasoning for their attacking the Vandals was "partly with a view to exterminate the Arian heresy, and partly for the purpose of restoring the supremacy of the Empire throughout the West."  (Ridpath, page 430)

The Ostrogoths were already within the territory of the Roman Empire when their king, Theodoric (who was an Arian Christian), conquered Odoacer in 493 and replaced the Heruli in Italy, thus expanding the Ostrogothic Kingdom.  The Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian sent Belisarius to attack the Ostrogoths resulting in the Gothic War from 535 to 554, but their kingdom did not fall easily.  Belisarius captured Rome in 536 and Ravenna (the Ostrogoth capital) in 540.  Control of Rome went back and forth several times. (Wikipedia Ostrogoths and Gothic War)  Finally, the last of the Ostrogothic kings was defeated in 553.  (Ridpath page 354)  It's worth noting that the WMSCOG claims the Ostrogoths were destroyed in 538. (Part 1)

Those are the supposed 10 kingdoms.  BUT one of them, the Kingdom of the Lombards, did not establish their kingdom in the territory of the Western Roman Empire until nearly a century after the end of the Empire, and about 35 years after the last supposed uprooting of the 3 kingdoms.

Then there are these kingdoms in the territory of the Western Roman Empire which aren't even on the list of the 10:
The Britons were distinct from the Anglo-Saxons.  You can see it on this map. (Wikipedia Britons historical)
The Bavarians "were governed by their own kings both before and after the downfall of the West." (Ridpath page 396)

Also, five of the kingdoms were conquered, not three, when the Ostrogoths were finally defeated (Alemanni, Burgundians, Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths--six if you also count the Suevi which met its end later in 585).

Plus the Pope-is-Antichrist teaching says the 3 kingdoms were subdued because of their conflict with Catholic doctrine, and the Ostrogothic kingdom was the last of those 3.  However...
Only one of the kingdoms at that time was Catholic (the Franks).
Two of the kingdoms were conquered even though they were Catholic (the Burgundians and the Suevi).

In summary...

The fall of the Western Roman Empire does NOT fit this prophecy of the 10 kingdoms arising with 3 being uprooted to leave 7 kingdoms.  Therefore, the Papacy (or Roman Catholic Church) does NOT fit this prophecy either.

Next time I'll examine Revelation 13:3-4...

Click here to go on to Part 4.

P.S.--Here's a chart to help you organize all this information...

Kingdom	Conquered	Catholic?	Notes
Visigoths	711	Converted about 580	Arian, yet not "destroyed by the Papacy"
Anglo-Saxons	1066	Converted in 600s	Pagan, yet not "destroyed by the Papacy"
Franks	became France	King converted in 496
Alemanni	496	Converted in 600s	Controlled by the Franks, Ostrogoths, and then Franks again, should be counted with the other conquered kingdoms
Burgundians	534	Converted prior to 534	Conquered even though they were Catholic, should be counted with the other conquered kingdoms
Lombards	Kingdom not established until 572	Converted in 600s	Too late to be considered one of the 10, not even in Roman territory when Ostrogoths were supposedly conquered
Suevi	585	Converted in 560s	Not "destroyed by the Papacy" when they were Arian, yet conquered when they were Catholic
Heruli	493	Arian king	Conquered by the Ostrogoths
Vandals	534	Arian
Ostrogoths	553	Arian king	Not destroyed in 538 as claimed
Britons			Not mentioned in the Pope-is-Antichrist claim
Bavarians			Not mentioned in the Pope-is-Antichrist claim