Posted on 10/31/2025 7:08:36 PM PDT by Philsworld
In view of the simplicity of the prophetic outline, of the requirements of the prophecy, and of the apparent fulfillment that has been herein described, only one conclusion seems possible, namely, that 538 and 1798 are indeed adequate dates wherewith to begin and end the 1260 days of prophecy, and that, in fact, they are so to the exclusion of all others.
(Excerpt) Read more at digitalcommons.andrews.edu ...
1798 was the year of the Marian Apparition near Quảng Trị at La Vang. That is what I went for in 2003.
You've posted this before so I'm going to repost what I told you then
The document, authored by a group of scholars affiliated with Seventh Day Adventist institutions, posits that 538 A.D. marks a decisive "metamorphosis" of the Pagan Roman Empire into the Holy Roman Empire through Emperor Justinian I's shift from military leader to theologian. It claims this event facilitated papal supremacy, fulfilled biblical prophecies (e.g., Daniel 7:25's "changing times and laws" for 1260 years until 1798), and was evidenced by numismatic changes, legal reforms, and ecclesiastical events. This interpretation relies on mixing up distinct historical entities.
In reality, the Seventh day Adventists claims are historically inaccurate, anachronistic, and driven by false prophetic preconceptions rather than objective evidence.
The Pagan Roman Empire had ended over a century earlier, the Holy Roman Empire emerged in the West centuries later (800 AD) under Charlemagne, Justinian exercised caesaro-papism (imperial control over the church) rather than ceding power to the papacy, and 538 A.D. holds no unique significance for papal dominance or imperial transition.
Let's blow apaatt the sheer nonsense in your SDA bull link
1. The Pagan Roman Empire Ended Long Before 538 A.D., Not in Justinian's Reign
The document asserts: "538 A.D. [as] the decisive 'shift' where imperial power was 'handed over' to the church and papacy, creating a 'symbolic power gap' filled by the papacy. Pre-538, the empire was pagan and military-focused; post-538, it became theocratic."
This is fundamentally wrong. The Roman Empire ceased to be pagan generations before Justinian (r. 527-565 A.D.). Emperor Constantine I's victory at Milvian Bridge in 312 A.D. led to the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D., tolerating Christianity and ending systematic persecution of Christians. Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and promoted Christianity, founding churches like St. Peter's Basilica. By 380 A.D., Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica, declaring Nicene Christianity the state religion: "It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter." Pagan sacrifices were banned in 391 A.D., and the Temple of Vesta closed. Emperor Theodosius destroyed the Serapeum in Alexandria in 392 A.D., marking the effective end of organized paganism. By 529 A.D., Justinian closed the last pagan schools in Athens, but this was mopping up remnants in a already Christian empire.
Your link's portrayal of a "pagan" empire in 538 ignores 150+ years of Christian dominance, including Theodosius's bans and Honorius's (r. 395-423) further suppressions. Justinian's persecutions targeted heretics (e.g., Monophysites, Arians) within Christianity, not pagans as a ruling force—paganism was marginal by his time.
2. The Holy Roman Empire Originated with Charlemagne in 800 A.D., Not Justinian's Byzantine Realm in 538
The authors claim 538 initiated the "Holy Roman Empire," with Justinian's theological pivot enabling a "theocratic 'Holy Roman Empire'" and papal inheritance of imperial power.
This conflates the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire with the medieval Western Holy Roman Empire (HRE). Justinian ruled the Byzantine Empire, the direct continuation of the Roman Empire centered in Constantinople since 330 A.D. (founded by Constantine). The Western Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D. to Odoacer, but the East persisted as Roman. The HRE, however, was a distinct Frankish-German polity in the West, revived under Charlemagne (King of the Franks from 768 A.D., King of Lombards from 774 A.D.). On Christmas Day 800 A.D., Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne "Emperor of the Romans" in Rome, symbolizing a new imperial authority blessed by the papacy, separate from Byzantine claims. This "translatio imperii" (transfer of empire) from Rome to the Franks addressed the "problem of two emperors"—Byzantine in the East and Charlemagne in the West.
The term "Holy Roman Empire" emerged in the 12th century, applied retroactively, but the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire was in 800 A.D., not 538 AD. Justinian's reconquests (e.g., Italy via Belisarius, 535-554 A.D. Gothic War) aimed to restore the undivided Roman Empire under Justinian control, not create a "Holy" Western entity. Post-568 A.D. Lombard invasions reduced Byzantine Italy to Ravenna's Exarchate; papal temporal power arose from Frankish donations (Pepin 756 A.D., Charlemagne 774 A.D.), not Justinian's "handover." The document's "Holy Roman Empire" in 538 is anachronistic, projecting medieval Western structures onto 6th-century Byzantium.
3. Justinian Exercised Caesaro-Papism, Controlling the Church—Not Empowering Papal Supremacy in 538
YOUR LINK FALSELY states Justinian's 533 A.D. letter to Pope John II recognized papal supremacy ("Bishop of Bishops"), and by 538, military victories (Belisarius entering Rome 536 A.D.) and laws transferred "dragon's" power to the "beast" (papacy, per Revelation 13), with Vigilius's election marking papal dominance.
Justinian's rule exemplified caesaro-papism: the emperor as supreme over church and state, convening councils and dictating doctrine. His 533 letter affirmed theoretical Petrine primacy (echoing earlier popes like Leo I, 440-461 A.D.), but in practice, Justinian dominated the papacy. He deposed Pope Silverius in 537 A.D. (exiled to Greece) for resisting Monophysite appeasement and installed Vigilius (537-555 A.D.), a Theodora ally, via Belisarius. Vigilius resisted Justinian's Three Chapters edict (543-553 A.D.), leading to his abduction to Constantinople and coercion at the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.), where he capitulated only under duress. This shows imperial override, not papal supremacy.
True papal temporal independence began post-Byzantine decline: Lombards captured Ravenna 751 A.D., prompting Pepin's Donation (756 A.D.) granting papal lands. Historians note 538's Gothic siege lift (March 538 A.D., Belisarius repels Vitiges) as tactical, not transformative—Ostrogoths under Totila retook Rome 546 A.D., holding until Narses's victory 553-554 A.D. No "power vacuum" for papacy; Byzantine control persisted via exarchs.
Your link's claim of Vigilius "buying" the papacy from Belisarius lacks primary evidence beyond biased interpretations; Vigilius's role was subordinate. Papal "supremacy" was aspirational theology, not political reality in 538—emperors like Justinian, and later Otto I (crowned 962 A.D., reviving Western empire), checked popes until Investiture Controversy (1075-1122 A.D.).
4. Specific Claims About 538 A.D. Events Are Misrepresented or Overstated
• Numismatic/Iconographic "Shift": The alleged coin change in 538 (from soldier to theologian with globe/cross) is cited as proving metamorphosis. While Justinian's coins evolved (e.g., victory themes post-reconquests), regnal dating began earlier, and Christian iconography (crosses) predates 538—Constantine introduced them post-312 A.D. No primary numismatic consensus marks 538 as uniquely theological; it's interpretive overreach tying to prophecy.
• Legal "Changes to Times and Laws": Novellae (e.g., LVII, LXVII 538 A.D.) regulated clergy and banned private worship, but built on Codex Justinianus (529, revised 534 A.D.), integrating prior Christian laws. Sabbath persecution targeted Judaizers, not broad "saints"; Sunday allowances at Orleans Council (538 A.D.) relaxed Constantine's 321 A.D. restrictions, not inventing observance (Apostolic tradition). Regnal year mandates (Novella XLVI, 537 A.D.) continued Roman practice, not novel "time change."
• Ecclesiastical/Persecutory Role: Justinian built churches (Hagia Sophia rededicated 537 A.D.) and unified doctrine, but failures (Monophysite schisms) highlight limits. Procopius's Secret History (c. 550 A.D.) criticizes Justinian personally but affirms his Roman restoration efforts, not Antichrist transfer. Population decline and "end of Senate" (last consul 541 A.D.) reflect Gothic War devastation (535-554 A.D.), not deliberate imperial abdication.
These events signify Justinian's Christian Roman revival, not empire-to-papacy handover. Byzantine Italy remained under imperial administration until 751 A.D.
5. The Seveth day Adventist Interpretation is Subjective and Circular
The 538-1798 timeframe fits SDA historicism (papacy as "little horn/beast") by retrofitting history—ignoring pre-538 papal influence (e.g., Gelasius I's 492 A.D. dual powers doctrine) and post-538 imperial checks. Historicists varied dates (e.g., 606 A.D. for Boniface III); 538 suits because Ostrogoths withdrew March 538 A.D., but ignores their resurgence. Ellen G. White's Great Controversy (1888/1911) popularizes this, but lacks empirical primacy—prophecy drives history, not vice versa. Broader scholarship rejects day-year for Daniel/Revelation as eisegesis; 1260 days symbolize incomplete persecution, not literal years.
In summary, your link's claims collapses under scrutiny: no pagan-to-holy transition in 538 (paganism ended 391-392 A.D.), no HRE origin (800 A.D. with Charlemagne), no papal empowerment (Justinian subordinated popes), and overstated 538 events. It exemplifies confirmation bias, subordinating historical to Adventist fictional fantasy, misrepresenting Justinian's Byzantine restoration as Western medieval prophecy fulfillment.
The letter defends the papacy's temporal authority against 19th-century Italian unification (Risorgimento), which culminated in the seizure of the Papal States by 1870,
Pius IX does not mention Justinian, 538 AD, or any specific date; his "fall of the Roman Empire" denotes the Western collapse in 476 AD (deposition of Romulus Augustulus by Odoacer - And note that what happened is that Odoacer sent the imperial rovers to Emperor Zeno in Constantinople saying that Zeno was now the sole emperor in charge of the whole Roman Empire with Odoacer his nominal vassal , followed by fragmentation into Gothic, Vandal, Frankish, and other dominations, with the papacy emerging as a stabilizing force over centuries—not acquiring independent civil rule overnight.
Historically, the papacy did not "acquire civil power from Justinian." Justinian I (r. 527–565 AD), emperor of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, sought to restore the undivided Roman Empire through reconquests, not partition it or cede sovereignty to the pope. Emperor Justinian's Pragmatic Sanction of 554 AD reorganized Italy under direct Byzantine imperial administration via the Exarchate of Ravenna, subordinating Rome and its bishop to Constantinople's oversight—hardly a grant of civil independence.
In 533 AD, Justinian's letter to Pope John II affirmed the pope's spiritual headship ("head of all churches"), echoing longstanding patristic claims (e.g., Pope Leo I's Tome in 449 AD), but this was theological flattery amid Justinian's caesaropapist control,
Temporal power remained with the emperor: Justinian deposed Pope Silverius in March 537 AD (exiling him to die in 538 AD) for resisting Monophysite policies and installed the compliant Vigilius (pope 537–555 AD) .
The pivotal event of 538 AD—Belisarius lifting the Ostrogothic siege of Rome (March 12, 538 AD) during the Gothic War (535–554 AD)—reasserted Byzantine imperial rule, not papal autonomy. Ostrogoths under Totila recaptured Rome in December 546 AD, holding it until Byzantine general Narses's final victory in 553–554 AD, after which Italy was governed as an imperial province plagued by wars, taxes, and plagues—not a papal fiefdom.
Pope Vigilius exemplifies subjugation to the Roman empror: Summoned to Constantinople in 544 AD for opposing Justinian's "Three Chapters" edict (condemning Nestorian writings), he resisted but was forcibly detained, excommunicated by African bishops in 550 AD. Vigilius died en route back to Rome in 555 AD, underscoring imperial dominance over the papacy for decades post-538.
No contemporary sources (e.g., Procopius's *History of the Wars*, written c. 550–560 AD) describe 538 as empowering the pope civilly; it was a military milestone in Justinian's failed overextension, costing Italy's population and economy dearly.
Secular histories (e.g., Edward Gibbon's *Decline and Fall*, ch. 43) portray Justinian as centralizing power, not devolving it. The papacy's early temporal influence was diplomatic (e.g., Pope Gelasius I's 494 AD letter asserting dual spiritual/secular spheres) or charitable, but sovereignty required Frankish military backing absent in Justinian's era.
In sum, your, Philsworld's linkage collapses: Pius IX generalizes providential evolution post-476 AD, Justinian subordinated rather than empowered the papacy temporally (537–555 AD episodes prove this), and 538 AD restored imperial, not papal, control.
Your claim exemplifies the Seventh Day Adventist nonsensical distortion of history, projecting 19th-century prophecy onto unrelated 6th-century events.
Also, 1260 days is probably what it says, 1260 days or a little under 3.5 years.
You can fit all sorts of things to time scales in Biblical prophecy and who knows, one person may one day fit exactly the right things, but in any case, these Biblical prophecies end with the glorious second advent of Christ and that will be so evident to people when it happens that whatever events led up to it and fit prophecy will be more of an afterthought than a countdown. And we are told also that the prophecies will be fulfilled when few expect it, so any idea of an obvious countdown is ruled out by that.
I presume with a date like 1798, this prophecy also places some importance on the emergence of America in the world. I would generally agree with that concept but I don’t believe that a lot of Biblical prophecy already happened centuries ago or even up to 1914 like the JWs believe. I think we’ll find out (after the fact when it’s explained to us) that prophecy is unfolding in modern times and the events we read about are in either modern times or future times.
It’s interesting, if Jesus had appeared on the earth in 1945 or any time shortly after World War II ended, it would have been very easy to show how all Biblical prophecy was fulfilled by events on a very similar time scale to various modern seven year plans, with Hitler as the Antichrist. For whatever reason God was not ready to send Jesus to the earth (in a visible form at least, I can’t say with any certainty that Jesus is not here waiting) in 1945 or any other time since then. He certainly didn’t show up in 1798 either.
——>Also, 1260 days is probably what it says, 1260 days or a little under 3.5 years.
Are Daniel’s 70 weeks literal weeks, or are they prophetic weeks = 490 years?
——>You’ve posted this before so I’m going to repost what I told you then
I don’t believe I’ve ever posted this article.
——>Let’s blow apaatt the sheer nonsense in your SDA bull link.
I understand your desperation, Cronos. And I know that you will say ANYTHING to defend against accusations, going back hundreds of years, saying that the Papacy is the biblical Antichrist/Little Horn power. Yes, you are desperate and pathetic. So much so that you try to twist and fabricate HISTORY in an attempt to convince others that it can’t be true. Well, dude, it’s true. Every biblical identifier points to the Papacy as the Antichrist/Little Horn power, every single one. And of course it’s all validated by history NON-JESUIT HISTORY.
I suggest that you read this Master’s Theses, specifically noting the summary of a 750-year survey of 135 expositors who have assigned dates to the 1260 days, the chapters/pages on HISTORICAL fulfillment, and the very detailed bibliography.
——>In reality, the Seventh day Adventists claims are historically inaccurate
I don’t recall there being any SDA’s 750 years ago.
——>The Pagan Roman Empire Ended Long Before 538 A.D., Not in Justinian’s Reign.
The Roman Empire broke up into/and was in 10 divisions/kingdoms IN JUSTINIAN’S REIGN. You should actually look at the prophecy. But, it’s just another case of “Disinformation Protocol” .....JESUIT DIP.
Nah, the desperation is you trying to keep the fig leaf of Adventist lies while seeing the historical fact that 538 AD isn’t at all what you claim it to be.
The Seventh day Adventism group is the failed Millerite losers who remained even after Miller himself disavowed what he initiated
The authors claim 538 initiated the “Holy Roman Empire,” with Justinian’s theological pivot enabling a “theocratic ‘Holy Roman Empire’” and papal inheritance of imperial power.
This conflates the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire with the medieval Western Holy Roman Empire (HRE). Justinian ruled the Byzantine Empire, the direct continuation of the Roman Empire centered in Constantinople since 330 A.D. (founded by Constantine). The Western Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D. to Odoacer, but the East persisted as Roman. The HRE, however, was a distinct Frankish-German polity in the West, revived under Charlemagne (King of the Franks from 768 A.D., King of Lombards from 774 A.D.). On Christmas Day 800 A.D., Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne “Emperor of the Romans” in Rome, symbolizing a new imperial authority blessed by the papacy, separate from Byzantine claims. This “translatio imperii” (transfer of empire) from Rome to the Franks addressed the “problem of two emperors”—Byzantine in the East and Charlemagne in the West.
The term “Holy Roman Empire” emerged in the 12th century, applied retroactively, but the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire was in 800 A.D., not 538 AD. Justinian’s reconquests (e.g., Italy via Belisarius, 535-554 A.D. Gothic War) aimed to restore the undivided Roman Empire under Justinian control, not create a “Holy” Western entity. Post-568 A.D. Lombard invasions reduced Byzantine Italy to Ravenna’s Exarchate; papal temporal power arose from Frankish donations (Pepin 756 A.D., Charlemagne 774 A.D.), not Justinian’s “handover.” The document’s “Holy Roman Empire” in 538 is anachronistic, projecting medieval Western structures onto 6th-century Byzantium.
Justinian’s rule exemplified caesaro-papism: the emperor as supreme over church and state, convening councils and dictating doctrine. His 533 letter affirmed theoretical Petrine primacy (echoing earlier popes like Leo I, 440-461 A.D.), but in practice, Justinian dominated the papacy. He deposed Pope Silverius in 537 A.D. (exiled to Greece) for resisting Monophysite appeasement and installed Vigilius (537-555 A.D.), a Theodora ally, via Belisarius. Vigilius resisted Justinian’s Three Chapters edict (543-553 A.D.), leading to his abduction to Constantinople and coercion at the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.), where he capitulated only under duress. This shows imperial override, not papal supremacy.
True papal temporal independence began post-Byzantine decline: Lombards captured Ravenna 751 A.D., prompting Pepin’s Donation (756 A.D.) granting papal lands. Historians note 538’s Gothic siege lift (March 538 A.D., Belisarius repels Vitiges) as tactical, not transformative—Ostrogoths under Totila retook Rome 546 A.D., holding until Narses’s victory 553-554 A.D. No “power vacuum” for papacy; Byzantine control persisted via exarchs.
——>The authors claim 538 initiated the “Holy Roman Empire,” with Justinian’s theological pivot enabling a “theocratic ‘Holy Roman Empire’” and papal inheritance of imperial power.
What authors, what article, what page?
The notion that 538 AD marked the beginning of papal temporal power—independent civil sovereignty—is unsupported by primary sources and historical scholarship. Instead, evidence shows the papacy remained subordinate to Roman imperial authority during and after Justinian's reign (527-565 AD).
Here are key first-hand accounts (primary sources) and historical books demonstrating this, focusing on the Gothic War (535-554 AD), papal subjugation, and later origins.
First-Hand/Primary Sources:
1. Procopius of Caesarea, "History of the Wars" (c. 550 AD): As Justinian's secretary and eyewitness, Procopius details the Siege of Rome (537-538 AD) in Book V. Belisarius, Justinian's general, lifts the Ostrogothic siege in March 538 AD but reasserts Byzantine control. Procopius notes Belisarius deposing Pope Silverius (536-537 AD) on imperial orders for alleged treason and installing Vigilius (537-555 AD) as a compliant figure. No papal independence; Vigilius is portrayed as an imperial puppet, coerced into exile and theological submission. This refutes any "power handover" in 538 AD—imperial dominance persists.
2. Liber Pontificalis (compiled 6th-9th centuries AD): This papal chronicle's entries for Silverius and Vigilius describe Silverius's election (June 536 AD) and deposition (March 537 AD) by Belisarius under Justinian's command, with Vigilius installed amid Gothic chaos. Vigilius's pontificate highlights imperial interference, including his abduction to Constantinople (545 AD) and forced ratification of Justinian's edicts (553-554 AD). Post-538, Byzantine oversight via the Exarchate of Ravenna continues until 751 AD; no temporal sovereignty granted. The text emphasizes popes as subjects, not rulers.
3. Letters of Pope Vigilius (537-555 AD): Vigilius's correspondence, e.g., to Justinian (c. 540 AD) and Patriarch Menas, initially affirms orthodoxy but later submissions (e.g., December 8, 553 AD letter to Eutychius confessing "deception") reveal coercion. Summoned to Constantinople (545 AD), he resisted Justinian's Three Chapters edict but capitulated under duress, dying en route home (555 AD). These letters illustrate subordination, not empowerment—Justinian dictates theology and personnel, contradicting any 538 AD "supremacy."
4. Pragmatic Sanction of Justinian (554 AD): This imperial decree reorganized reconquered Italy under Byzantine administration, granting popes minor roles (e.g., weights/measures oversight) but affirming exarchal control from Ravenna. No cession to papal sovereignty; Italy remains a province, with popes as bishops under emperor.
5. Letters of Pope Gregory the Great (590-604 AD): Gregory's epistolae (e.g., to Byzantine officials) show ongoing imperial taxation, military garrisons, and papal appeals for protection against Lombards—decades post-538, confirming no independent power; Gregory administers patrimonies but under exarch.
Historical Books (Secondary Sources Citing Primaries):
1. Edward Gibbon, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (1776-1789), Chapters 40-41: Gibbon details Justinian's reconquests, Gothic War, and 538 AD siege lift as military tactics, not papal empowerment. He portrays Vigilius as "submissive" to Justinian, emphasizing caesaropapism; temporal power arises later with Pepin (756 AD).
2. Thomas F. X. Noble, "The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State" (1984): Analyzes primary sources (e.g., Liber Pontificalis, Codex Carolinus) to argue "birth" in 681-752 AD, culminating in Pepin's Donation (756 AD); dismisses pre-8th century "power" as administrative under the Roman emperor
3. Gustav Schnürer, "States of the Church" in Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14 (1912): Cites Liber Pontificalis, Gregory's letters; dates sovereignty to Pepin (756 AD), with pre-8th holdings as private under Roman exarchs—no 538 AD shift.
4. Louis Duchesne, "Le Liber Pontificalis" (1886-1892): Critical edition of primary papal chronicles; entries confirm 6th-century subjugation, temporal origins with Franks.
5. J.B. Bury, "History of the Later Roman Empire" (1923), Vol. II: Draws on Procopius; describes Justinian's Italy as imperial province post-554, popes as loyal subjects—no autonomy in 538 AD.
These sources collectively prove 538 AD marked imperial reconquest, not papal empowerment;
Turning to the numerous historical fallacies in the Seventh-Day Adventist group:
I have no strong feelings about what the real time scale of the 70 weeks prophecy is, but the 1,260 days have so many references that either (a) there are several different prophecies that can have different time scales, or (b) they all refer to the same interval which seems very likely to be 1,260 days literally since many of the references sound like they describe the lives of individual people, of course they could be code for longer intervals, it’s unlikely that they would verify at shorter time scales.
I have read what others may have read about the seventy weeks, for example how there could be 69 weeks already done, and one final week that is the basic seven-year end time prophecy. But I feel like I have never seen anything all that convincing (for me at least) and I don’t profess to understand that prophecy, except that I do think it is likely to be closer to 490 years than 70 weeks as such.
70 prophetic weeks = 490 years but 1260 prophetic days still = 1260 literal days?
I just wanna eat my popcorn.
Daniels visions were fulfilled with the 1st Advent of Christ. Christ is the stone unhewn by human hands that smashes the pagan empires and becomes a mountain, Christianity, that covers the whole earth.
All furst century Jews believed that Daniels visions would be fulfilled on the furst century hence the proliferation of “Messiahs” from Judas of Galilee in 10 BC to Simon Bar Kochkba in 136 AD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.