The Prophecies of Daniel

[JudaicChristian]

The Catholic Church claims they can trace their beginning to Peter. A great many saints have died because of the (Vati-can.)

 

[veteran]

No, rather it is simply a fact of recent Christian history that many have proffered many names , organisations, etc as candidates for the title 'antichrist'. Fiction books and movies add to plethora of confusion as to who it is or might be. By overlooking the testimony of all the reformers and the facts of medieval history in particular and continuing to claim that the antichrist is still future you are adding to the confusion.

Dwelling on just the signs the reformers had in their day while disregarding signs today is the confusion you speak of. It's also confusion to not recognize a blueprint ensample of the Daniel prophecy, since we and the reformers were given the example of Antiochus from 170 B.C.

I never claimed that the Roman Empire was Christian. Certainly, by the time of Constantine, I am aware that many historians claim that at least half of the empire had converted to Christianity, and I have no reason to argue with that. Which prompted Constantine to his pretended conversion and his subsequent tolerance toward the new religion. Constantine himself however never gave up his sun worship.

One could easily bring up the point of how the Jews also failed in following God's precepts, and followed after idol worship and God punished them for it. God gave Jeroboam a kingdom, but Jeroboam setup golden calf worship which the later kings of Israel also failed to abolish after him. God took the kingdom from Solomon's son because of Solomon allowing idol worship to come into Israel. So why all this focus only on Constantine? Was there no others in the land that followed after Christ better than Constantine.

The true faith was persecuted relentlessly in Rome by the pagan power, yes, but when Constantine moved his capital to the east and left the secular seat vacant, the church was corrupted over a period of time and apostacised when she accepted the secular role of the pontiffs of Rome. The Roman official church which later became the papacy then turned its persecuting powers against those Christians who chose not to side with the corrupted branch, and fled to the wilderness. (See Rev.12) The pagan beliefs never fully disappeared, they were continued in the compromised dogmas and doctrines of the Roman church. In Christmas, in Easter, in Sunday, and many others. All remnants of the old pagan worship system that survived in a 'baptised' form. The iron continued in those beliefs, and in the penchant for persecuting and ridding itself of dissent.

The true Faith was not just persecuted at Rome, but also in other European nations, like Britain, which at times also had corrupt leaders in the Church that didn't want God's Word to go to the common man. This was the reason for the 1611 KJV Bible, to alleviate that. And not all the pagan customs which pagan converts to Christ had originated from pagan Rome. And that idea Rev.12 applied to that time is strictly an SDA teaching, as much of what you say is, and is not actually doctrine from reformers like Martin Luther.

Roman Church history and British Church history have always been separate. The 1611 KJV translators included a Letter to the reader and to king James, and in they repeated the declaration of not recognizing a "bishop of bishops" in Rome as being over them. The role of "bishop of bishops" only came about later when bishops outside Rome were trying to wrestle authority for theirselves. So there was a time in Roman Church history that no pope existed.

Per secular history, the early western European nations came out of two peoples which were related to each other, the Cimmerians and the Scythians, both which migrated into Europe from the east at differing times. And the Roman Empire at its height included the Eastern Roman Empire, all which included many more nations than ten. All that can be seen as then, was a shadow, a type only, and not the real "little horn" over the ten kings of Daniel.

That's what the early western European map reference I gave reveals. And even scholars that did hold to that ten nations idea still saw the ten horned beast of Revelation as the pattern for a final antichrist way in the future.

The ten horned beast of Revelation 13 is the antichrist. And as can be seen it is a beast that comprises all of the 4 previous beasts depicted in Daniel 7. Interesting that John , as he describes the beast, goes backwards in chronological order. Working back he describes the iron teeth, the leopard body, the bears feet, and lions mouth. Naturally he couldn't name Rome as his writings would have been immediately confiscated by his captors. The ten horns of that beast however are a different ten, coming up as he did after 476ad and the already established ten horns of the beast of Daniel 7. The seven heads are significant also, but that is for another study.

No, the ten horned, ten crowned, seven headed beast of Rev.13:1 is a beast KINGDOM, not the antichrist. This is why we're given the Daniel beast kingdom patterns in the next verse of Rev.13:2. It's so to compare that one of Rev.13:1 with the ones in Daniel 7. Later in Rev.13:11 forward John was shown "another beast", an entity, which is the role of the antichrist (or in place of Christ per the Greek meaning of the word). So there's two 'beasts' mentioned in Rev.13, the first is a political working over nations, and the second is a religious working by a specific entity, and that entity's identity is connected with the title of the "dragon". Per God's Word in Rev.12:9, that "dragon" title is applied to Satan himself, and not to any man.

The popes of Rome claimed universal authority over all Christians everywhere it could cast its tentacles. The Celtic church held out for many years, but was eventually overcome greatly through political manouverings and the threat of war. The same way the Roman church held sway in many parts of Europe by using Catholic kings to implement Roman dogma. Clovis of the Franks is one early example. Augustine was the first Catholic in Britain, but by no means the last. A 1000 years of war and politics followed, and today there is still a battle going on in Britain for the hearts and minds of her people. I would hesitate to claim the the Roman church had only a small role in European history. It dominated the area for over a thousand years, deposing kings at will and putting fear into the hearts of anyone who would dare to claim independence.

The British Church still held on though, and the Protestant rebellion also broke off the power of the Roman Church. But that's not the point, because Christianity was accepted on a national scale in Britian while Rome was still under pagan control. And God helped in that even though the Protestants still held to a Sunday Sabbath. Amazing, don't you think? Let's not forget America's part in the growth of Protestant Christianity either.

Sorry, Veteran, but 'better than anyone to date' doesn't cut it. Prophecy demand complete fulfilment, or it's not worth contemplating. Antiochus did not fulfill every requirement of the prophecy. Thus he cannot be considered as any type of antichrist, real or shadow.

Better than anyone to date is factual. Who else since has gone in a temple in Jerusalem and placed an idol abomination requiring the Jews to follow false worship while desolating the temple with swine's broth? Antiochus did just that in 170 B.C. The Roman Church didn't even exist when Christ pointed to the "abomination of desolation" prophecy from Daniel while pointing specifically at the temple complex in Jerusalem (Matt.24; Mark 13). But strange how your doctrine wants to move where Christ was pointing to for that event in Daniel to some other place, like Rome.

Antiochus most definitely does serve as a Biblical ensample of the "vile person" prophecy in Daniel. A 'type' or 'shadow' of a multiple fulfillment prophecy does not mean the 'type' must fulfill the whole prophecy. Instead, that is how one recognizes a 'type' instead of the final and ultimate fulfillment in toto. Just as the 'day of The Lord' events of the OT serve as 'types' for the final 'day of The Lord' when Christ returns to end this present world, so does Antiochus serve as a 'type' for the latter days fulfillment of the "vile person" prophecy in Daniel. The orthodox Jews today are prepared to build another temple in Jerusalem. That possibility is even greater now, since this year some Islamic leaders are now saying a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount would be OK as long as the Dome of The Rock stays. So you and those on old reformer's and SDA Church's doctrines can keep pointing to Rome today, but if that new temple in Jerusalem comes about, will you still keep to those old doctrines and be deceived about the times? I hope not.

Present as literal powers is what the beast kingdom working of Rev.13:1 is especially about. The inclusion of all the previous beast kingdoms of Daniel within the final one of the feet of ten toes of part iron and part clay involves it having ruling power over all the nations on earth. What political working is that also called today? The "New World Order" concept; the "one world government" concept, the joining of all nations under one centralized power. That one world government plan has been OPENLY working for a quite a while now, so none today can claim ignorance of it and remain credible. The beast kingdom pattern has been one of expanding territory. And in final, it's to cover the entire earth.

Now the pagan working within you speak of, is about the second beast of Rev.13:11, the religous beast working of the "dragon", raining fire down from the sky in the sight of men, and deceiving the whole world by those miracles he does. That is the pagan "king of the world" the secret societies have declared they intend to setup in power over the whole earth.

No wonder you are confused. You are claiming that Antiochus is a fulfilment of a prophecy Jesus gave nearly 200 years after Antiochus disappeared from the scene. Huh?

I mention how the Daniel prophecy of the "abomination of desolation" specifically involves a temple in Jerusalem, and then you play ingornant and say I'm the one that's confused? You well know that I did not claim Antiochus as the final fulfillment of the Daniel prophecy, but only as a blueprint type for the final one. Antiochus fulfilled the "vile person" prophecy in Daniel ALMOST to a tee, yet he did not fulfill it all, and that's why he still serves as the best example in that role to date. With Christ giving the "abomination of desolation" prophecy from Daniel almost 200 years later, that also proves Antiochus was only a type, and not the real fulfillment of it. It means to keep looking for it to be fulfilled.

Yet the Romans in 70 A.D. didn't even come close to fulfilling the "abomination of desolation" Daniel prophecy, and the Historicist doctrine treats what the Romans did then as fulfilling it. The Romans never got inside the Jewish temple in Jerusalem to place the abomination that makes desolate, for it's about the placing of an idol in false worship in Jerusalem.

First, the legs of iron are attached to the feet. No gap. Second, I will show from history in coming posts that the papacy fits the demands of the prophecy exactly. I will show that the church of Rome rose among the ten nations which were established before 476 ad, that she uprooted 3 of them, that she ruled as a church/state union thus continueiong the role of pagan Rome mixed with the church (iron/clay) and that she fulfilled at least 7 or 8 other characteristics of the little horn as well, excepting none. To claim that there is still a future entity aside from the RCC is to utterly ignore history.Evidence of all this is in the pipeline and I will post as time ( and answering your challenges) permits.

That doesn't make sense, because the beast kingdoms in Daniel 2 came up, and then ended, replaced by the next beast kingdom. Babylon was destroyed by the Medo-Persia empire, then pagan Greece destroyed the Medo-Peris empire, and then pagan Rome conquered pagan Greece. And then pagan peoples conquered the Roman empire. And then Rome, western Europe and Asia Minor converted to Christ Jesus. Since that time the pagan Roman empire ended, no beast kingdom has been setup on earth. The beast image part of the feet of ten toes of part iron and part clay is still to come, and is what is being setup over all the earth today. It is in process of engulfing all those previous beast kingdom areas. It's ten kings (ten toes) are not setup yet today, because Rev.17 tells us those ten kings only come to power one hour with the beast king, the "little horn" of Daniel.

I agree. And I will explain how the papacy suffered a deadly head wound as per the picture in Revealtion and is now today recovering from that. Current events declare that she is gaining power in Europe. But Europe is not her goal. She aims far wider than that. She craves global power, as recent papal encyclicals have revealed.

But that's not going to happen, because the various religions in the world, especially Judaism, are not going to bow down in false worship to a Catholic pope, nor any other flesh religious head. But they will ALL agree to bow to the real antichrist that is coming.

My contention is exactly that, yes. Much of western 'Christianity' has indeed been fake. Or as the Bible put it, apostate. The real gospel was in the west though, but in the wilderness. Hidden in the caves and mountains where they had been chased and harried by the Roman church. Again, see Rev. 12.

It wasn't just the Roman Church that persecuted the faithful in The Gospel of Jesus Christ. And that's the problem with the outdated reformers historicist doctrines you hold to about Rome. Just as the faithful have been persecuted by others, even corrupt leaders in the later British Church, likewise it has been in other nations outside Britain and Rome. That's one of the reasons why many Protestant Christians in Europe came to the Americas. The Catholic Church still does not exhibit authority over the Protestant Churches, especially not in the U.S. The printing of the 1611 KJV Bible was a working directly against the Roman Church. Will you also say the KJV Bible was done for political reasons too, which is another Judaizer doctrine?

 

[brakelite]

Veteran, I am not sure we actually disagree on very much as far as history is concerned, it only the application of that history to the Bible prophecies. We both see a concurrent Christian parallel, apostate and true, running throughout history in many parts of the world. One the monstrosity based in Rome, the other in the wilderness in the Italian alps (the Waldenses), in France, (the Huguenots), the Celtic church in Britain and many others. All represented by the woman in the wilderness. But this isn't a discussion on rev 12, but on whether the RCC is an accurate fulfillment of the little horn of Daniel 7. You claim no, me yes. Allow me to continue to present my evidence before you so adamantly claim otherwise.

As I gave in a previous post, there are at least 11 distinct characteristics which identify the little horn. I will deal here with
The first characteristic is
1) The little horn arises from the fourth beast (Daniel 7:8). The fourth beast represents Rome, so the little horn must be a Roman power.

Remember the image of Daniel 2? The legs were of iron, but the feet were of iron and clay. What does the clay represent? We know the iron represents pagan Rome. In fact, throughout history Rome has been recognized as the ‘Iron Kingdom’ or Empire. But what of the clay that is in union with the iron, but unable to cleave to one another?
The Bible is its own best expositor, so we shall go to the word of God to find our answer.

Isa 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?
Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
Jer 18:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

So according to the above evidence, we see that clay represents God’s people, or His church. Therefore we can justifiably conclude that the feet of the image in Daniel 2, made of iron and clay, is a union of church and state. We see also in the text of Daniel 2 that the clay is miry clay. Miry clay is unworkable. It cannot be shaped by the potter into anything useful; it is fit only to be discarded. It may have begun its life as suitable clay for the fashioning of the potter, but became miry. This is therefore signifying the apostasy Paul spoke of that would take place after he had gone and before Christ comes. Thus it is an apostate church in union with the Roman power. Understandable then when we later see the rock of Christ destroying the image, including the iron /clay union.
So according to Daniel 2, there is a union of church and state, and this union is Roman, and continues to be Roman, without pause or break, from the time of paganism to the present day and on until the second coming.
There is only one viable candidate that answers to the description. There is only one church power that grew out of Rome, there is only one church/state union that grew out of the Roman Empire, and continues to the present time. And that is the Roman Catholic Church.
The religion of Rome was adopted by the church. It is well known that Constantine the Great brought all sorts of pagan practices into the church. This is recognized by both secular and church historians. In fact, the name “Supreme Pontiff†(Pontifex Maximus) was used by the pagan Roman emperors. After the Edict of Milan was signed in the year 312 A. D., Christians were restored as bona fide citizens of the Roman empire.

Constantine, emperor of the Roman empire, was the architect of this Edict of Milan.
Regarding Constantine,Dave Hunt remarks:
“A brilliant military commander, Constantine also understood that there could be no political stability without religious unity. Yet to accomplish that feat would require a union between paganism and Christianity. How could it be accomplished? The Empire needed an ecumenical religion that would appeal to every citizen in a multi-cultural society. Giving Christianity official status was not enough to bring internal peace to the Empire: Christianity had to undergo a transformation so that pagans could ‘convert’ without giving up their old beliefs and rituals.
Constantine himself exemplified this expediency. He adopted Christ as the new god that had given him victory in the crucial battle at Milvian Bridge in 312 A. D., and brought him into Rome as its conqueror. Yet, as Caesar, he continued to function as the Pontifex Maximus of the Empire’s pagan priesthood, known as the Pontifical College. . . As a ‘Christian’ Emperor, he automatically became the de facto civil head of the Christian church and seduced her with promises of power. Thus began the destruction of Christianity and the process that created Roman Catholicism as it is today.†(Dave Hunt, Global Peace, pp. 106-107) .
“It was ‘Christianity’, in fact, which gave the Empire a unity and continuity that held it together culturally and religiously. When the Empire later disintegrated politically under the onslaught of the Barbarians, it was held together religiously by the all-pervasive presence of the Roman Catholic Church with its ingenious ecumenical blend of paganism and Christianity still headquartered in Rome.†(Dave Hunt, Global Peace, p.110).

John Henry Cardinal Newman makes this admission:
“We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water; asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments; the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleisen, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the church. (Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 373).


Philip Schaff, one of the greatest church historians ever to wield a pen, wrote the following:
“But the elevation of Christianity as the religion of the state presents also an opposite aspect to our contemplation. It involved great risk of degeneracy to the church. The Roman state, with its laws, institutions, and usages, was still deeply rooted in heathenism, and could not be transformed by a magical stroke. The christianizing of the state amounted therefore in great measure to a paganizing and secularizing of the church. The world overcame the church, as much as the church overcame the world, and the temporal gain of Christianity was in many respects cancelled by spiritual loss. The mass of the Roman empire was baptized only with water, not with the Spirit of the gospel, and it smuggled heathen manners and practices into the sanctuary under a new name. The very combination of the cross with the military ensign by Constantine was the most doubtful omen, portending an unhappy mixture of the temporal and the spiritual powers.†(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, p. 93).

“St. Thomas. . . says that the Roman Empire has not ceased, but is changed from the temporal into the spiritual. . . It was, then, the Apostolic Church, which, spreading throughout the nations, already combined together by the power of the heathen empire of Rome, quickened them with a new life. . . the temporal power in the old heathen empire of Rome, and the spiritual power in the supernatural kingdom of God met together. . . these two powers were blended and fused together; they became one authority, the emperor ruling from his throne within the sphere of his earthly jurisdiction, and the Supreme Pontiff ruling likewise from a throne of a higher sovereignty over the nations. . . the material power which once reigned in Rome [was] consecrated and sanctified by the investiture of the Vicar of Jesus Christ with temporal sovereignty over the city where he dwelt. And now for these twelve hundred years the peace, the perpetuity and faithfulness of the Christian civilization of Europe, has been owing solely in its principle to this consecration of the power and authority of the great empire of Rome, taken up of old, perpetuated, preserved, as I have said, by the salt which had been sprinkled from heaven, and continued in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, and in that order of Christian civilization of which he has been the creator.†(Cardinal Manning, The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, pp. 123-128).


Notice the following amazing declaration by Cardinal Manning:
“Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire [remember this fact of history. Protestant futurists rewrite history and deny that the Roman Empire was ever divided]. The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.†(Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862).

This might well be the time to speak of the mysterious “restrainer†that the Apostle Paul refers to in II Thessalonians 2. The early church Fathers were practically unanimous in the opinion that the “restrainer†was a reference to the Roman empire in general and the emperors in particular. Paul indicates that the Church at Thessalonica knew who the restrainer was. And yet Paul speaks in veiled language. And why would this be? Simply because Paul could not speak openly about the empire which was governing in his day. If he had publicly stated that the Roman empire was going to be taken out of the way, the emperors would have had grounds to accuse Paul of sedition. So Paul had to be cautious in his comments. If the restrainer was the Holy Spirit, as many futurists believe, then why was Paul so cautious? It is clear that Paul could not define the “restrainer†openly. It was not necessary to do so because the Thessalonians knew what he was talking about.

So without doubt the Roman Catholic church rose out of Rome, inherited much of the pagan religion of Rome, and is in fact a mere continuation of the Roman Empire, only in another form. A further affirmation of this is in Daniel 8:9,10 which horn represents the whole Roman epoch both pagan and papal,we see a change in direction. Whereas at first its conquests are on a horizontal plane, in verse 11 it changes direction and focus and adopts a vertical focus, toward heaven.

 

[brakelite]

Characteristic 2.

2) The little horn arises among the ten horns. The ten horns are the divisions of western Europe, so the little horn must arise in western Europe (7:8). Notice that these first two characteristics restrict the geographical location of the little horn to western Europe.

That the little horn was to rise up among ten future kings was understood by the early church fathers. They saw and understood that what Paul meant when he said.......

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

.......was the Roman power. They understood that when the Roman power was taken out of the way, the antichrist would appear among the ten kings, and would subdue 3 of them.

First, let us read what the well known Catholic historian Cardinal Manning had to say:
“Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.â€
(Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862).

Acording top Manning, there was a restraint that inhibited the Bishops of Rome from exercising full authority as the temporal and spiritual leaders they believed was their destiny.

Tertullian 160-240AD
“‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.’ What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? ‘And then shall be revealed the wicked one.†“On the Resurrection of the Flesh,†chapter 24; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, p. 563

“The very end of all things threatening dreadful woes is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman Empire.â€
(“Apology,†chapter 32; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, p. 43).

Lactantius (early fourth century):

“The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of Rome remains, it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that only, which still sustains all things.â€
(“The Divine Institutes,†book 7, chapter 25; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 220).

Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386 A. D.):

“But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman Empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after those an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, ‘three he shall humble,’ and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself.â€
(Catechetical Lectures,†section 15, on II Thessalonians 2:4; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 108

Ambrose (died in 398):

“After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear.â€
(Quoted in, Bishop Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 463)

Chrysostom (died in 407):

“When the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he [the Antichrist] shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God.â€
“Homily IV on 2 Thessalonians 2:6-9,†Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. XIII, p. 389

So after the restraint of Rome was removed, first ten kings arose from within, and the empire was divided between them.

From the historian Barnes we read the following very interesting remark regarding other historians.

“Even the Romanists themselves admit that the Roman Empire was, by means of the incursions of the northern nations, dismembered into ten kingdoms (Calmet on Revelation 13:1; and he refers likewise to Berangaud, Bossuet, and DuPin. See Newton, p. 209); and Machiavelli (‘History of Florence,’ 1.i) with no design of furnishing an illustration of this prophecy, and probably with no recollection of it, has mentioned these names: 1. The Ostrogoths in Moesia; 2. The Visigoths in Pannonia; 3. The Sueves and Alans in Gascoign and Spain; 4. The Vandals in Africa; 5. The Franks in France; 6. The Burgundians in Burgundy; 7. The Heruli and Turingi in Italy; 8. The Saxons and Angles in Britain; 9. The Huns in Hungary; 10. The Lombards at first upon the Danube, afterwards in Italy.â€
(Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel, p. 322.)

“Antichrist, then (as the Fathers delight to call him), or the little horn, is to be sought among the ten kingdoms of the Western Roman Empire. I say of the western Roman Empire, because that was properly the body of the fourth beast; Greece, and the countries which lay eastward of Italy belonged to the third beast; for the former beasts were still subsisting, though their dominion was taken away. ‘As concerning the rest of the beasts,’ saith Daniel, ‘they had their dominion taken away; yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.’ Daniel 7:12. ‘And therefore,’ as Sir Isaac Newton rightly infers, ‘all four beasts are still alive, though the dominion of the three first be taken away. The nations of Chaldea and Assyria are still the first beast. Those of Media and Persia are still the second beast. Those of Macedon, Greece and Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, are still the third. And those of Europe, on this side of Greece, are still the fourth. Seeing therefore the body of the third beast is confined to the nations on this side the river Euphrates, and the body of the fourth beast is confined to the nations on this side of Greece; we are to look for all the four heads of the third beast among the nations on this side the river Euphrates; and for all the eleven horns of the fourth beast, among the nations on this side of Greece.â€
(Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, pp. 239, 240).

The above quote is also very pertinent to Revelation 13 and the beast that arises from the sea having all the composite parts of the beasts of Daniel. All four beasts are still alive in composite form of the Revelation beast, the antichrist. Notice also the steady progression in a westerly direction of each power. First Babylon, then Media/Persia, then Greece, then Rome and Europe. In Revelation 13 the beast of the sea being composite of all these, is followed by a beast that rises from out of the earth. There are many who believe this power that rises chronologically after the European composite, is that power which lies further westward, namely America. But that subject is for another day.

 

[veteran]

Veteran, I am not sure we actually disagree on very much as far as history is concerned, it only the application of that history to the Bible prophecies. We both see a concurrent Christian parallel, apostate and true, running throughout history in many parts of the world. One the monstrosity based in Rome, the other in the wilderness in the Italian alps (the Waldenses), in France, (the Huguenots), the Celtic church in Britain and many others. All represented by the woman in the wilderness. But this isn't a discussion on rev 12, but on whether the RCC is an accurate fulfillment of the little horn of Daniel 7. You claim no, me yes. Allow me to continue to present my evidence before you so adamantly claim otherwise.

Yes, we do seem to agree on SOME things, but definitely not on a lot of things, mainly that because of the false views you're on makes you want to apply the majority of Bible prophecy to the past. I don't see a very wide gap between the Preterist and Historicist views. Being shackled to either of those views in today's times can be very dangerous.

As I gave in a previous post, there are at least 11 distinct characteristics which identify the little horn. I will deal here with
The first characteristic is
1) The little horn arises from the fourth beast (Daniel 7:8). The fourth beast represents Rome, so the little horn must be a Roman power.

Already we're in disagreement, because the "little horn" in Daniel is associated with the kingdom of the feet of ten toes of part iron and part clay, and is about a 5th beast kingdom still to come. Until you recognize that beast image part of 'clay' as a separate prophetic time you won't understand the proper timing of the "little horn".

Remember the image of Daniel 2? The legs were of iron, but the feet were of iron and clay. What does the clay represent? We know the iron represents pagan Rome. In fact, throughout history Rome has been recognized as the ‘Iron Kingdom’ or Empire. But what of the clay that is in union with the iron, but unable to cleave to one another?

Daniel 2:34-35 shows the beast image being smitten on what part? On its feet. Why can't you fathom how the beast image's feet is not its legs? I think our Lord made that feet part very easy to grasp, even for a little child, so you really have no excuse in passing over or denying that part of the Scripture.

I scrapped your reference in trying to explain what the 'clay' of Dan.2 represents, because you forget examples like in Rom.9 about how God hardened Pharaoh's heart in relation to God being the Potter and man being the clay. Thus it's not a figure meant just for Israel, but for all flesh, for all men, since God made us all from the clay of the earth. It's widest symbolic application is that of 'man' involving this world since Adam.

In the Daniel 2 reference to the ten toes, clay is given as a figure simply to show it represents 'something' that won't mix with iron. Both the parts of iron and clay break when Christ ("stone") comes to smite it on the feet, remember? So the clay definitely is not His Church, nor Israel, nor the joining of Church and State. The idea of the ten kings and the "little horn" of Daniel and beast of Revelation 17:10-13, is that of a king, a monarchy.

There is only one viable candidate that answers to the description. There is only one church power that grew out of Rome, there is only one church/state union that grew out of the Roman Empire, and continues to the present time. And that is the Roman Catholic Church.

The Vatican is not a Monarchy.

The religion of Rome was adopted by the church. It is well known that Constantine the Great brought all sorts of pagan practices into the church. This is recognized by both secular and church historians. In fact, the name “Supreme Pontiff†(Pontifex Maximus) was used by the pagan Roman emperors. After the Edict of Milan was signed in the year 312 A. D., Christians were restored as bona fide citizens of the Roman empire.

That kind of thinking is a sign of Judaizers like the ones Apostle Paul had to deal with. Early Christianity had to deal with pagan converts in ALL churches everywhere. Our Lord's Messages to the churches in Asia revealed that. Some like the one He called a Jezebel was a real problem, but was that church at Rome? No. So you need to get off your high hat on that about the early Roman Church and that Judaizer thinking. Judaizers need to rethink their status, and determine whether they want to be religous Jews or Christians. Can't be both.

God used Constantine. Did Constantine really understand what Christianity was about? Probably not. Did he actually believe on Jesus of Nazareth as The Saviour? God knows. The main point in that time of history is that it allowed The Gospel of Jesus Christ to really take off to many other peoples and nations. Did the early Roman Church reduce the spread of pagan idol worship and pagan superstition? Yes. Did it quell all of that, no. And then what did the Protestant rebellion produce? It came about in a time when more Christians were ready to READ The Bible for themselves. That's one of the acts Luther helped spawn. And with the invention of the printing press The Bible became available on a huge scale to the people.

So as one can easily see today, those in corruption among the Roman Church lost the battle, and the war for control over the people's hearts and minds. The Church in Great Britain is still separate, and the Protestant Churches in the West are still separate from papal authority. If you can't see God's Hand in that, but want to think Rome has absolute authority and power over all Christians, then keep dreaming.

This might well be the time to speak of the mysterious “restrainer†that the Apostle Paul refers to in II Thessalonians 2. The early church Fathers were practically unanimous in the opinion that the “restrainer†was a reference to the Roman empire in general and the emperors in particular. Paul indicates that the Church at Thessalonica knew who the restrainer was. And yet Paul speaks in veiled language...

I don't see Paul speaking in any so-called "veiled language" in 2 Thess.2. He was very clear in his Letter to the Thessalonians, because it involved the timing of "the day of Christ" when Christ is to come and gather the saints to Himself. Did that happen in their day? No! Paul reveals that in the very FIRST VERSE of 2 Thess.2 about Christ's coming and the gathering of the saints! So how could anyone like yourself that's claimed so much here, be still ignorant to that fact? And you are ignorant about that first verse of 2 Thessalonians 2, because you're trying to replace the timing of Christ's coming to sometime back in history about the Roman Empire! That's more like the doctrine of Preterism instead of Historicism, because at least most Historicists I know still believe Christ's literal coming is still sometime in our future! The early Church fathers also believed what Paul said in 2 Thess.2 that Christ's coming and the gathering of the saints was still future in their days. You know, come to think of it, most true SDA I know also believe Christ's second coming is still future also!

Thanks for revealing your Preterist and Judaizer alignment 'brakelight'. I figured it would come out eventually.

So without doubt the Roman Catholic church rose out of Rome, inherited much of the pagan religion of Rome, and is in fact a mere continuation of the Roman Empire, only in another form. A further affirmation of this is in Daniel 8:9,10 which horn represents the whole Roman epoch both pagan and papal,we see a change in direction. Whereas at first its conquests are on a horizontal plane, in verse 11 it changes direction and focus and adopts a vertical focus, toward heaven.

The Roman Church rose out of the devout Christians that were in pagan Rome, like the Apostles Peter and Paul, both which preached The Gospel in Rome. But I would expect a Judaizer teaching to consider what Peter and Paul taught at Rome as coming from 'paganism', because the Judaizers who converted to Christ in Paul's day showed they had crept in to try and thwart Christianity. That is what's beyond doubt. So your teaching has only pieces of truth in it mixed with a lot of untruth about that time in history, and is a sign of a Judaizer teaching.

 

[Acts6:5]

Hi brakelite.

“The historian Machiavel, without the slightest reference to this prophecy, gives the following list of the nations which occupied the territory of the Western Empire at the time of the fall of Romulus Augustulus [476 A. D], the last emperor of Rome: The Lombards, the Franks, the Burgundians, the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Vandals, the Heruli, the Sueves, the Huns, and the Saxons: ten in all.†(H. Grattan Guinness, The Divine Program of the World’s History, p. 318).â€

“Even the Romanists themselves admit that the Roman Empire was, by means of the incursions of the northern nations, dismembered into ten kingdoms (Calmet on Revelation 13:1; and he refers likewise to Berangaud, Bossuet, and DuPin. See Newton, p. 209); and Machiavelli (‘History of Florence,’ 1.i) with no design of furnishing an illustration of this prophecy, and probably with no recollection of it, has mentioned these names: 1. The Ostrogoths in Moesia; 2. The Visigoths in Pannonia; 3. The Sueves and Alans in Gascoign and Spain; 4. The Vandals in Africa; 5. The Franks in France; 6. The Burgundians in Burgundy; 7. The Heruli and Turingi in Italy; 8. The Saxons and Angles in Britain; 9. The Huns in Hungary; 10. The Lombards at first upon the Danube, afterwards in Italy.â€
(Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel, p. 322.)â€

The first two chapters of Machiavelli’s History of Florence contain two separate lists of Germanic nations in the Western Empire; one list during the reign of Emperor Theodosius II, the other during the reign of Emperor Zeno around 476AD.

In chapter 1, Machiavelli listed the barbarian division of the Roman Empire in the time of Theodosius as follows: 1. The Vandals (Africa), 2. The Alans and Visigoths (Spain), 3. The Franks and Burgundians (Gaul), 4. The Huns (Pannonia), 5. The Angles (Britain), 6. The Britons (Brittany).(pg. 5-6)

In chapter 2, he listed the barbarian division of the Roman Empire during Zeno’s reign in the following manner: 1. The Ostrogoths in Mesia and Pannonia, 2. The Visigoths, Sueves, and Alans in Gascony and Spain, 3. The Vandals in Africa, 4. The Franks and Burgundians in France, 5. The (H)Eruli and Thuringi in Italy (pg.8).

He didn’t mention the Angles’ rule of Britain in chapter 2, but if we add them to the list, that makes six “kingdomsâ€, not ten. There is no mention of the Lombards on this list because, according to Machiavelli, by 476AD they had entered the districts left unoccupied by the (H)eruli and Thuringi upon the “farther bank of the Danubeâ€, districts which were outside of the Roman Empire (pg.7). The Huns were also not mentioned here because Machiavelli says they had been compelled to “repass the Danube and return to their country†(pg.6), so they too were outside of the Roman Empire. Now he mentioned that the name “Hungary†derived from the earlier Huns, but he did not say the Huns ruled a kingdom in the Hungarian region around 476AD.

So one has to question the accuracy and/or honesty of Guinness in this instance, because the list of nations occupying the Western Empire in 476AD that he credits to Machiavelli is not the same as the one in History of Florence; it just turns out to be an amalgamation of tribes Guinness picked from two different time periods.

Barnes only faired a little better; he placed the Visigoths in Pannonia after 476AD (which of course they weren’t), and he admitted that the Lombards were “first upon the Danube†(ie: outside the empire), but “afterwards in Italyâ€. Of course it needs to be noted that they only ended up “afterwards in Italy†some 90+ years after the fall of Romulus Augustus. So I fail to see how the Lombard’s future Italian kingdom that emerged in 568AD has any bearing on the list of Western barbarian kingdoms existing in 476AD.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[JudaicChristian]

This might well be the time to speak of the mysterious “restrainer†that the Apostle Paul refers to in II Thessalonians 2. The early church Fathers were practically unanimous in the opinion that the “restrainer†was a reference to the Roman empire in general and the emperors in particular. Paul indicates that the Church at Thessalonica knew who the restrainer was. And yet Paul speaks in veiled language. And why would this be? Simply because Paul could not speak openly about the empire which was governing in his day. If he had publicly stated that the Roman empire was going to be taken out of the way, the emperors would have had grounds to accuse Paul of sedition. So Paul had to be cautious in his comments. If the restrainer was the Holy Spirit, as many futurists believe, then why was Paul so cautious? It is clear that Paul could not define the “restrainer†openly. It was not necessary to do so because the Thessalonians knew what he was talking about.

So without doubt the Roman Catholic church rose out of Rome, inherited much of the pagan religion of Rome, and is in fact a mere continuation of the Roman Empire, only in another form. A further affirmation of this is in Daniel 8:9,10 which horn represents the whole Roman epoch both pagan and papal,we see a change in direction. Whereas at first its conquests are on a horizontal plane, in verse 11 it changes direction and focus and adopts a vertical focus, toward heaven.

I like your post, they show that you are well studied in scripture and history. Perhaps we can get together some day and talk.

 

[veteran]

II Th 2:7-8
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming:
(KJV)

The restrainer Paul was talking about is Michael, not the Roman empire. That's very simple to grasp, because both Daniel 12:1 and Revelation 12:7-9 speak of Michael making a stand in Heaven to cast Satan and his angels out. Daniel 10 declares Michael is the one that withholds.

Another pointer to know that has nothing to do with Rome, is that 2 Thess.2:8 verse where Paul declares it is Christ Who will reveal "that Wicked" (one) at His second coming. Christ's second coming has not happened yet today. Some among the doctrines of Preterism try to say Christ's second coming was history, that it was spiritual only, but that's not what God's Word teaches. It is instead a doctrine of men that intend to deceive many Christians into accepting "that Wicked" (one) in place of Christ because that false one is to appear on earth first per Apostle Paul, prior to Christ's second coming.

The idea that the early Church fathers were unanimous that Paul was speaking of Rome is a false assumption.

 

[Acts6:5]

The dragon beast represents the Roman empire (168 B. C. - 476 A. D.). This empire came to be known as the “iron monarchy of Rome†(Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 4, p. 161).

Gibbon mentioned in the footnote that he used “iron monarchy†as a specific reference to Daniel 2:31-40. So rather than the Roman Empire becoming known as the iron monarchy, this was simply an example of Christian commentary in action.

“The ten horns represent the ten kingdoms into which the Roman Empire was divided when it fell apart. These ten kingdoms, according to Edward Gibbon, were: The Alemanni, the Franks, the Burgundians, the Vandals, the Suevi, the Visigoths, the Saxons, the Ostrogoths, the Lombards and the Heruli (see, M. H. Brown, The Sure Word of Prophecy, pp. 54, 55).

As in my previous post, there seems to be, yet again, another disconnect between what the religious commentator claimed, and what the historian actually wrote.

Gibbon’s list of barbarian kingdoms when Rome fell reads as follows: the Saxons (Britain), the Franks with the dependent kingdom of the Burgundians (Gaul), the Visigoths with the dependent kingdom of the Suevi (Spain), the Vandals (Africa), and an “army of barbarian mercenaries†(Italy) who were later succeeded by the Ostrogoths (in 493AD) (Vol. IV, pg.86-87). So even if you count the number of dependent kingdoms, that’s a total of eight kingdoms, not ten.

Gibbon didn’t mention the Alemanni or the Lombards in the chapter discussing the divisions of Rome (probably because the Lombards weren’t in the empire at that time), and he didn’t say that Italy was ruled by a “Heruli†kingdom, but rather by an “infliction†of barbarian mercenaries of various tribes, what he described in another volume as a “monarchy destitute of national union†(Vol. III pg. 519). Other historians agree with this view; Charles Oman called them “fragments of a dozen broken Teutonic clansâ€; Pasquale Villari described them as little more than “bands of adventurersâ€. Justine Randers-Pehrson called them a “mixture of mercenariesâ€. Calling those men a kingdom of Heruli, or Turcilingi, or Sciri, or Rugi, or Alans, etc. is ultimately both inadequate and inaccurate, especially when contemporary chroniclers couldn’t even agree on how to classify them.

3) The little horn rises after the ten horns (7:24). According to historians, the ten horns were complete in the year 476 A. D., so this must mean that the little horn was to arise to power sometime after 476 A. D.

The truth is, Gibbon didn’t mention ten kingdoms in 476AD, and neither did Machiavelli; and Guinness, Barnes, and Brown (who were not historians) had to manipulate Machiavelli and Gibbon’s lists in order to find ten...and even their lists didn't agree.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Acts6:5]

4) The little horn was to pluck up three of the first [ten] horns by the roots (7:8). This means that these three nations would be uprooted from history. Daniel 7:20-21 explains that three of the first horns would fall before the little horn, and Daniel 7:24 tells us that the little horn would subdue three horns. In other words, three of the first ten nations would disappear from history!!

So which barbarian kingdoms did the papacy pluck up, and what historical evidence do you have for this claim?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Acts6:5]

4) The little horn was to pluck up three of the first [ten] horns by the roots (7:8). This means that these three nations would be uprooted from history. Daniel 7:20-21 explains that three of the first horns would fall before the little horn, and Daniel 7:24 tells us that the little horn would subdue three horns. In other words, three of the first ten nations would disappear from history!!

So which three barbarian kingdoms did the papacy pluck up, and what historical evidence do you have for this claim?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[JudaicChristian]

4) The little horn was to pluck up three of the first [ten] horns by the roots (7:8). This means that these three nations would be uprooted from history. Daniel 7:20-21 explains that three of the first horns would fall before the little horn, and Daniel 7:24 tells us that the little horn would subdue three horns. In other words, three of the first ten nations would disappear from history!!

So which three barbarian kingdoms did the papacy pluck up, and what historical evidence do you have for this claim?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

I'm not sure but I think it may have been the Goths, Heruli, and the Vandals.

 

[Acts6:5]

4) The little horn was to pluck up three of the first [ten] horns by the roots (7:8). This means that these three nations would be uprooted from history. Daniel 7:20-21 explains that three of the first horns would fall before the little horn, and Daniel 7:24 tells us that the little horn would subdue three horns. In other words, three of the first ten nations would disappear from history!!

So which three barbarian kingdoms did the papacy pluck up, and what historical evidence do you have for this claim?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

I'm not sure but I think it may have been the Goths, Heruli, and the Vandals.

Ok. But do you know of any historical evidence crediting the papacy with the uprooting of those specific tribes?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[JudaicChristian]

[quote="Acts6:5":dsw2j6rs]

4) The little horn was to pluck up three of the first [ten] horns by the roots (7:8). This means that these three nations would be uprooted from history. Daniel 7:20-21 explains that three of the first horns would fall before the little horn, and Daniel 7:24 tells us that the little horn would subdue three horns. In other words, three of the first ten nations would disappear from history!!

So which three barbarian kingdoms did the papacy pluck up, and what historical evidence do you have for this claim?
In Christ,


Ok. But do you know of any historical evidence crediting the papacy with the uprooting of those specific tribes?
In Christ,

Acts6:5

[/quote:dsw2j6rs]
There was no distinction between Rome and the Vatican in those days, other than Eastern and Western Rome. (The two legs of the statue) The Vatican was the Roman seat of power until 1798 AD.

 

[JudaicChristian]

There is some info on the Internet and also Wikipedia. See: Goths, Heruli, and the Vandals.

 

[Acts6:5]

There was no distinction between Rome and the Vatican in those days, other than Eastern and Western Rome.

Those differences were pretty substantial. If you think that the Roman See and the Byzantine government were of one accord between the rise of Odoacer in 476AD and the fall of the Ostrogoths then you are greatly mistaken. There is simply no justification in claiming that the Bishops of Rome should be credited with the military exploits of the Eastern emperors unless you can provide historical evidence. It would be just as ridiculous to claim that the Patriarch of Constantinople was responsible for Emperor Justinian's war with the Sassanids in the 6th Century.

(The two legs of the statue) The Vatican was the Roman seat of power until 1798 AD.[/size]

Not in the 5th-6th Centuries. Emperor Valentinian III moved the seat of imperial power from Rome to Ravenna during his reign. The seat of power remained in Ravenna after Odoacer's coup and Theodoric's invasion, and when Justinian re-established direct imperial authority over the penninsula in 554AD, he created the Exarchate of Ravenna as the seat of his government in Italy. Rome was certainly the seat of the papacy, but not of Roman power.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Acts6:5]

There is some info on the Internet and also Wikipedia. See: Goths, Heruli, and the Vandals.

Sure, but how much of that info credits the papacy with the destruction of the Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths? Can you proivde examples? I don't believe that the Wikipedia entries for those tribes credit the Roman See with their demise, and the only sources on the net that blame the papacy seem to be Adventists/historicists. I certainly do not know of any contemporary Roman sources that state that the papacy uprooted those three tribes. In fact, the Heruli tribe converted to Catholicism early in the 6th Century after their king, Gretes, was baptized with Justinian's blessing in Constantinople after 527AD, and the Heruls fought beside the Byzantines throughout the conflicts against the Vandals and Ostrogoths.

“Conversion to Christianity usually attended the establishment of such relations. Justinian had the glory of superintending the baptism of Gretes, king of the Heruls, and Gordas, king of the Huns, who lived near Bosporus;â€
(A History of the Later Roman Empire, J.B. Bury, pg. 469)

“No other barbarian people compares with the Herules in contributing troops to Justinian’s wars.â€
(Barbarian Tides, Walter Goffart, pg. 208)

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[JudaicChristian]

Sure, but how much of that info credits the papacy with the destruction of the Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths? Can you proivde examples? I don't believe that the Wikipedia entries for those tribes credit the Roman See with their demise, and the only sources on the net that blame the papacy seem to be Adventists/historicists. I certainly do not know of any contemporary Roman sources that state that the papacy uprooted those three tribes. In fact, the Heruli tribe converted to Catholicism early in the 6th Century after their king, Gretes, was baptized with Justinian's blessing in Constantinople after 527AD, and the Heruls fought beside the Byzantines throughout the conflicts against the Vandals and Ostrogoths.

Acts6:5

So where are those tribes today? They are gone. Throughout history the Vatican has operated through other governments / kingdoms. There are many twist and turns throughout history for which I'm not interested in arguing about.

 

[Acts6:5]

So where are those tribes today? They are gone.

But how does their being “gone†inherently implicate the papacy in their disappearance?

Throughout history the Vatican has operated through other governments / kingdoms.

But you can’t merely assume that in the cases of the Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths, the papacy was operating through the Byzantine government. All I’ve seen so far are assumptions; what is the historical evidence?

There are many twist and turns throughout history for which I'm not interested in arguing about.

So does that mean you do not know of any evidence that credits the papacy with the disappearance of the three tribes?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[JudaicChristian]

• On December 15, 533, Gelimer and Belisarius clashed again at Tricamarum, some 20 miles (32 km) from Carthage. Again, the Vandals fought well but broke, this time when Gelimer's brother Tzazo fell in battle. Belisarius quickly advanced to Hippo, second city of the Vandal Kingdom, and in 534 Gelimer surrendered to the Roman conqueror, ending the Kingdom of the Vandals.
  
  North Africa became a Roman province, from which the Vandals were expelled. The surviving Vandal men were enslaved, while the captured Vandal women married Byzantine soldiers.

• After the Heruli kingdom was destroyed by the Langobards, Herulian fortunes waned. Remaining Heruls joined the Langobards and moved to Italy, and some of them sought refuge with the Gepids. Marcellinus Comes recorded that the Romans (meaning the East Romans or in modern naming the Byzantines) allowed them to resettle depopulated "lands and cities" near Singidunum (modern Belgrade); this was done "by order of Anastasius Caesar" sometime between June 29 and August 31, 512. After one generation, this minor federate kingdom disappeared from the historical records.

• Langobards: The Lombards (Latin Langobardi, whence the alternative names Langobards and Longobards) were a Germanic people originally from Northern Europe who settled in the valley of the Danube and from there invaded Byzantine Italy in 568 under the leadership of Alboin. They established a Lombard Kingdom, later named Kingdom of Italy, which lasted until 774, when it was conquered by the Franks.

• Ostrogoths:Totila was slain in the Battle of Taginae in July 552 and his followers Teia, Aligern, Scipuar, and Gibal were all killed or surrendered in the Battle of Mons Lactarius in October 552 or 553. Widin, the last attested member of the Gothic army revolted in late 550s, with minimal military help from the Franks. His uprising was fruitless; the revolt ended with Widin captured and brought to Constantinople for punishment in 561 or 562. With that final defeat, the Ostrogothic name wholly died.