I'm Not Making This Up.

 Directly from the BIBLE- the beast with seven heads and ten horns-  NOT a Hollywood movie, not a best seller fiction tale, not a weekly drama, but REALITY. There is NO fiction involved here, not a single bit. The Beast. When that word is spoken you instantly envision a creature beast with seven heads and ten horns, a monster ready for a Godzilla movie, right? You can picture this. Yet the Bible isn't a work of fiction (no matter how many people would have others believe so). This is REALITY, yet… the reality of it is that this monster, this beast is SYMBOLIC, as prophecy often is. Symbolic meaning it represents something else. There is NO monster with seven heads and ten horns making an appearance, not ever! Not the huge beasts we've conjured up in our imaginations and brought to life on television, in theaters, in many books, and all matter of media out there- video games and so on. 

To get to the reality of this beast we've had to turn to the Bible itself and search out the meaning of the symbols. The Bible explains it all, giving us all the details we'd need to with use historical fact to bring it all to the light of comprehension, the light of truth.

Rev 13:1  And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and TEN HORNS, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Dan 7:7  After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had TEN HORNS. 

Dan 7:8  I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things

If you read those verse above then you read about a beast with ten horns, then you read about a beast with three of those horns being plucked up by a little horn that had the eyes of a man and a mouth speaking great things.

We've detailed in our previous studies of the current (lengthy) study how this all falls into line with prophetic truth, historical fact and it represents Papal Rome.  I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP! I'm not saying any of this to disparage anyone! I have NO reason to do so, I GAIN NOTHING by lying, not a thing! HISTORY, don’t believe me, believe the Word of God and Historical fact! 

Today's study goes further to solidify the corruption of Papal history in the early church back in the 500-600's AD. By this time the church was deep into deception and unrecognizable as anything truly holy. Jesus would NEVER ever, ever have condone the things the church grew into so quickly after He left earth for heaven, never! Remember, Jesus told His Apostles, His disciples, that this world was not what we live for, but for heaven and the world to come, the promise of the Kingdom of heaven. 

Joh_16:33  These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Tribulation in this world, this is the truth. Jesus did NOT set up any kind of reigning kingdom upon earth and if that was His intention He would have done so! He was HUMBLE, He would NEVER have gathered riches to himself, NEVER! He never wanted any CIVIL POWER at all! He NEVER wanted to be dictator to people, punishing them vilely for not serving Him!  NEVER! That wasn't JESUS! How DARE anyone, ANYONE assume they have the right to FORCE belief on anyone at all! Jesus never forced a single person to believe in Him, never. But people DARE to do all the time, ALL the time! The sheer number of people tortured brutally and put to death by the Papacy is unbelievable. There is NO way that organization could be of God, none, and still… it explains away it's horrors as if they are inconsequential to what they still claim to be. They claim reform, yet their very history prophetically condemns them should they dare face truth.

May God help us only seek TRUTH! Please LORD, let this continued 100,000 piece puzzle we are putting together give us a comprehension that leaves no doubt to YOUR truth!

All through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, now and forever!  AMEN!!!!!!!

*******

CHAPTER XI. THE BEAST WITH SEVEN HEADS AND TEN HORNS - Continued…

(As was said by Gieseler, the pope was already "the only center of Catholic Christendom in the West," and Justinian's letter and gifts fully accomplished the same result for the pontiff, in the East. The following is a copy of that part of the letter which specially relates to this point:--)

Continued excerpt from letter- 

Then followed a statement at length of the case in dispute, in the spirit and style of theological disputes of that age. He presented his request as follows:-- 

"We entreat, therefore, your fatherly love, that in your letters designed for us,--and to the holy bishops of this blessed city, and to the patriarch, your brother, since he, too, of himself, through them the messenger bishops of the emperor, has written to your Holiness, hastening in all things to follow the apostolical chair of your Blessedness,--you make manifest to us, that all we rightly confess aforementioned, your Holiness accepts."

But beyond a doubt it is safe to judge that it was not altogether "of himself" that the patriarch of Constantinople professed in all things to follow the apostolical chair of his Roman rival. It was out of complaisance to Justinian. After the death of this emperor, the patriarch of Constantinople made still further efforts to secure the honors of the primacy. The act of Justinian, causing the patriarch of the imperial city to write so obliging a letter to the Roman pontiff, was an important one in the work of subjecting all the priests of the East to the Roman see.

The matter of this letter to the pope is worthy of careful consideration.

1. The emperor renders homage to the apostolical chair of Rome.

2. It was his desire to preserve the unity of his apostolical authority.

3. He subjected and united to the pope all the priests of the whole East.

4. He would not suffer anything to be done in the churches without the knowledge of his holiness.

5. He declared the bishop of Rome to be the head of all the holy churches.

6. He was anxious to increase the honor and authority of his apostolical chair.

7. He announces the submission of the patriarch of Constantinople to the pontiff.

And to this may be added that, in a letter to Epiphanius, about the same time, he declared that the pope was the "head of all bishops and the true and effective corrector of heretics." 

Croly on the Apocalypse. Every sentence is strong, and the last declaration is a seal to all the others.

Let us notice in connection the four steps in establishing the complete power of the papacy.

1. The primacy of the whole church, which was as extensive as the empire of Constantine, was given to the bishop of Rome.

2. He was made a civil magistrate of the highest rank.

3. The seat of the empire was removed from Rome to Constantinople, thus virtually leaving the old capital to the pope, and which soon became a fact.

4. All the bishops and all the churches of the whole East were subjected and united to him, he being already the center of Christendom in the West. 

In these steps, nothing was lacking to enable him to exercise all the power that he claimed; for in these he was granted the most complete spiritual authority, with the civil power necessary to make that authority effective. 

What do historians say of the action of Justinian in behalf of the pope? That which has been quoted from Gibbon in another place is well worth repeating in this connection. Speaking of the success of Belisarius in suppressing Arianism in Africa, he said of Justinian:--

"He received the messengers of victory at the time when he was preparing to publish the Pandects of the Roman law; and the devout or jealous emperor celebrated the divine goodness, and confessed in silence the merit of his successful general. Impatient to abolish the temporal and spiritual tyranny of the Vandals, he proceeded, without delay, to the full establishment of the Catholic Church. Her jurisdiction, wealth, and immunities, perhaps the most essential part of episcopal religion, were restored and amplified with a liberal hand; the Arian worship was suppressed; the Donatist meetings were proscribed; and the synod of Carthage, by the voice of two hundred and seventeen bishops, applauded the just measure of pious retaliation." Decline and Fall, chap. 41, paragraph 11.

These words of Gibbon refer to much more than the mere letter to the pope, important as that was. Gieseler enumerates some of the particular facts of Justinian in "the full establishment of the Catholic Church." 

He speaks as follows:--

"The clergy, and particularly the bishops, received new privileges from Justinian. He intrusted the latter with civil jurisdiction over the monks and nuns, as well as over the clergy. Episcopal oversight of morals, and particularly the duty of providing for all the unfortunate, had been established till the present time only on the foundation of ecclesiastical laws; but Justinian now gave them a more general basis, founding them on the civil law also. He made it the duty of the bishops, and gave them the necessary civil qualifications, to undertake the care of prisoners, minors, insane persons, foundlings, stolen children, and oppressed women; and invested them with the power of upholding good morals and impartial administration of justice. It is true, that he established a mutual inspection of the bishops and the civil magistrates; but he gave in this respect to the latter considerable smaller privileges than to the former. For example, he gave the bishops a legal influence over the choice of magistrates, and security against general oppression on their part; allowed them to interfere in cases of refusal of justice; and in special instances, even constituted them judges of those official personages. In like manner he conveyed to them the right of concurrence in the choice of city officials, and a joint oversight of the administration of city funds, and the maintenance of public establishments. Thus the bishops became important personages even in civil life; and were further honored by Justinian, in freedom from parental violence, from the necessity of appearing as witnesses, and from taking oaths." Gieseler, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 2, pp. 117-119, Clark, Edinburgh, 1848.

 

It is true that these privileges were for all bishops; all were, in material points, elevated above other magistrates; and in this respect, the grants of Justinian  were a great enlargement of the civil powers granted by Constantine, as already noticed. By these the church was elevated far above the civil department of the government; and if such were the prerogatives of all bishops, what must have been the effect on the standing of him who was declared by imperial authority to be "the head of all bishops"? He was aptly styled "the chief Christian magistrate." And this implied much under the peculiar condition of the country, broken up by contending armies. All the steps herein noticed for the elevation of the Roman pontiff, were by authority of the emperors and councils, and not one of them was ever reversed or annulled. It has been assumed that we must come further down, to the time of Phocas, and to his action of 606, for the full establishment of the papacy. But for this there is no just reason. Phocas, according to all history, was one of the most depraved of men, the vilest of murderers and usurpers. Gibbon gives a description of his person and crimes, which we have room to barely notice:--

"The pencil of an impartial historian [Cedrenas] has delineated the portrait of a monster; his diminutive and deformed person. . . . Ignorant of letters, of laws, and even of arms, he indulged in the supreme rank a more ample privilege of lust and drunkenness; and his brutal pleasures were either injurious to his subjects or disgraceful to himself."

After describing his murder of all the family of the Emperor Maurice, he speaks of his treatment of other victims as follows:-- 

"Their condemnation was seldom preceded by the forms of trial, and their punishment was imbittered by the refinements of cruelty; their eyes were pierced, their tongues were torn from the root, the hands and feet were amputated; some expired under the lash, others in the flames, others again were transfixed with arrows; and a simple speedy death was mercy which they could rarely obtain."

Decline and Fall, chap. 46, paragraph 12.

Maurice, the predecessor of Phocas, favored the claim of the patriarch of Constantinople to the primacy. This, of course, highly incensed Gregory the Great, who had, until that time, been considered one of the best of Roman bishops. Upon the usurpation of Phocas, Gregory sought his friendship, hoping that through him the influence of Maurice might be counteracted. Gregory disgraced his memory by writing the most extravagant laudation of the inhuman monster, calling upon all the earth and the angels in Heaven to rejoice over the accession of an emperor so truly just and pious.  Infallibility in the popes does not guarantee truthfulness and discernment of character. We see this also in the case of Leo the Great, who declared, in his letter to Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, that he discovered in him great love and Christian graces. Dioscorus was one of the worst bishops of his age, which is putting him very low; avaricious, ambitious, and blood-thirsty; Leo himself was compelled to depose him. More shameful yet is the case of Gregory, who professed to find almost celestial purity in Phocas. He also wrote a letter to Leontia, the wife of Phocas, who, according to history, was as vile as her husband, ascribing to her like Christian graces, and plainly asking her to make proof of her piety by remembering with favor the see of St. Peter, on whom the Saviour had conferred such blessings. Just what Gregory desired can never be known, for he had denounced the title of universal bishop, claimed by the bishop of Constantinople, as the token of heresy, the very badge of antichrist. Had the emperor transferred that title to the West, whether then he would not have found sufficient reason to change his mind, or to modify his denunciations, as Baronius has done for him, is a question; for the instance was never known of a bishop of Rome refusing anything that added to the dignity of that see.

The bearer of Gregory's letter to Phocas was a priest who afterwards became pope under the name of Boniface III. It is recorded that he was the only one base enough to applaud and flatter Phocas in the very commission of his crimes. He became the favorite of Phocas and his wife, and when he came to the papal chair he is said to have requested the emperor to deprive the patriarch of Constantinople of the title which he had claimed, and confer it upon himself and his successors in the chair of St. Peter. And this, it is asserted, Phocas did more readily because the bishop of Constantinople had resisted him in his cruelties to the wife and daughter of Maurice. But nothing was granted by Phocas that had not already been conferred. The primacy and chief rank of Rome had been declared and twice confirmed before the time of Justinian, and this emperor constituted him the head of all the churches and of all bishops, with many other privileges of which it is not claimed that Phocas said anything. And, moreover, just what Phocas did declare is a matter of doubt.

Bower says: "As for the edict issued by Phocas on this occasion, it has not indeed reached our times." And Gieseler, whose reliability will not be questioned, says:--

"It is commonly asserted, and by men of the greatest learning and best acquainted with ancient history, that the Roman pontiff, Boniface III., prevailed on that abominable tyrant Phocas, who, after murdering the Emperor Mauritius, mounted the imperial throne, to divest the bishop of Constantinople of the title of eúcumenical bishop, and to confer it on the Roman pontiff. But this is stated solely on the authority of Baronius; for no ancient writer has given such testimony. Yet Phocas did something analogous to this, if we may believe Anastasius and Paul Diaconus. For whereas the bishops of Constantinople had maintained that their church was not only fully equal to that of Rome, but had precedence of all other churches, Phocas forbade this, and determined that the priority of rank and dignity should be given the Church of Rome." Ecclesiastical History, Book 2,

Cent. 17, Part 2, chap. 2.

That Boniface III. was ambitious and unscrupulous, is shown in his flattery of Phocas. His unbounded arrogance led him to attach much more to the title, probably, than had his predecessors. And no honor conferred upon or claimed by the bishop of Rome was ever relinquished. But we have searched diligently, and in vain, to find anything granted by Phocas authentically established, which had not then already been conferred. Gibbon speaks the exact truth when he says that Justinian proceeded "to the full establishment of the Catholic Church."