1

A STRANGE GOD IN APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY!

(CRITICAL INSIGHTS ON DANIEL 11:36-39) By Derrick Gillespie

PART 1
Introduction: Many past scholars, and several present scholars of the Bible, including Seventh-day Adventists, recognize that the seemingly parallel prophecies of Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11 clearly identify the Papacy, in symbol, as the little horn or the Man [system] of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2: 3, 4. It is felt by many, that Daniel 11:36-39, in particular, highlights the fact that he [the system collectively] shall acknowledge and increase with glory, what is Biblically called, a strange god, a god whom his fathers [Christian forerunners] knew not. Who or what is this strange god. Now as is the case with certain Bible prophecies, in which certain details have no clear-cut interpretation, various possibilities can, and have been advanced over time. It is not scholastic or proper just to use propaganda to latch on to one interpretation to serve ones purposes or agenda. Much more than that is needed. However, through careful Biblical, historical and logical analysis it is possible to determine which is the most suitable interpretation (or interpretations, as more than one application might be possible, within good reason), and which interpretation (s) fails the test of application. Interpretations Advanced An Outline: 1. The strange god was the invading Syrian king, Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (self titled a god manifested), who placed an idol (Zeus) in, and desecrated the Jewish temple before the Christian era (C.E. or B.C.) 2. The strange god arose when France, in its eighteenth century Revolution, abolished all religion and honored atheism (belief in no God), and human reason as a personified god or goddess 3. The strange god arrived when the Papacy or Roman Catholic state religion introduced and honored as God or a god: [a] The Pope himself [b] The Virgin Mary, and or [c] The Trinity (i.e. three personalities) of the Godhead Now let us, through the process of elimination, first determine which applications are unsuitable. IF IT DOESNT FIT Antiochus IV, EpiphanesSome scholars see Antiochus IV, the Greco-Syrian king attacking the Jews (in the second century B.C.), and, for a time, briefly subverting their religion, and defiling their temple with a Greek god, as the fulfillment of the prophecy (of Daniel 11:36-39, and

2 similarly of Daniel 8: 9-12) years before Jesus came. However, the words of Jesus declared that the introduction of the abomination (Dan 8:13; 9:27; and 11:31, literally an abomination that desolates or an abomination that appalls), by a particular state power into the holy place, was still future in A.D. 31 when He spoke about the meaning of this same prophecy. See Matthew 24:15 and Mark13: 14 (clearly referring to the abomination introduced among Gods people, in the temple, as in Dan. 8:13, and 11:31). Who better to take a cue from, but Jesus Himself? Some argue that when Jesus identified the particular state power responsible for the abomination of desolation he was just making a secondary application, and not necessarily identifying the primary power connected with the abomination of desolation to be visited upon Gods people in Daniel 8, or 11. That would have been a possibility if other clues (as seen below) did not strongly suggest that Jesus meant to identify the real power connected with the interpretation of Daniels abomination of desolation, despite the Jews had their temple already desecrated by not just Antiochus of the Greeks, decades before, but also by Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar of the Babylonians before Antiochus (Dan. 5:1-4). Jesus words were, notice carefully, When you see THE abomination of desolation (not an abomination, but the abomination; specific, distinctive, and exclusive) spoken of by Daniel!!! Must we ignore Jesus use of the specific and exclusive article THE abomination, and also Pauls further reference to the same reality after Jesus left us? And, as Albert Barnes (a renowned Bible commentator) rightly remarks, about Matthews insert about Jesus words here: Whoso readeth let him understand... - This seems to be a remark made by the evangelist to direct the attention of the reader particularly to the meaning (not a meaning, but the meaning) of the prophecy by Daniel (Albert Barnes Commentary on the Bible). Must we ignore this worthwhile observation too? In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4, the apostle Paul evidently also refers directly to Daniel 11:36-39 (which was an obvious continuation from verse 31 of Daniel 8), about the king or kingdom (specific and exclusive), indicating that the continued fulfillment of the presence of the abomination in the holy place was obviously connected to the same empire or power of Jesus time. But further fulfillments were still future in his time (i.e. after Jesus earthly sojourn), they were to come shortly, and would be someone or something related to the same power Jesus identified, and would have something or someone sitting (i.e. taking up residence) in the temple of God, showing *himself that he is God (i.e. being falsely paraded to be such). Note the man of sin showing HIMSELF to be God. We will come back to that word himself later; it is critical. Just keep reading. Paul felt that in his time the mystery of iniquity was already at work, thus the particular power concerned was already on the scene (2 Thess. 2:7, 8), and thus fulfillments of its influence could not be very far off, i.e. not coming too far after 51 A.D. when he wrote 2 Thessalonians. But which power is central to this prophecy? Notice Jesus applied the prophecy literally to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple under pagan Rome (!!), while Paul applies it (using the very words of Daniel 11:36-37) to something residing in the temple, under the same Roman (!!) system (since we now know Rome ruled for several centuries thereafter). Since the Jewish

3 temple has not existed since A.D. 70, then clearly the temple in this prophecy cannot be future to the year 2000 A.D., as some believe (futurists), thus the application must be in another sense. And since Jesus identified the particular state power related to the prophecy to appear at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then we KNOW that it is *Rome- which ruled for hundreds of years after- the same power which would still be in power when the man of man came on the scene to reside in the temple after Pauls time. Paul shows clearly that the source of the man [system] of sin (clearly an abomination to be in the temple) had to be near Pauls time, under the long lasting Roman system, since the developments leading up to this new phase of the abomination was already taking place (2 Thessalonians 2:7). Paul also made it clear that the system or influence of that Roman power would remain in place until the end. 2 Thessalonians 2:8. Of course the early Apostles clearly did not know that the end would be yet longer in coming than they thought, since no man knows the day nor the hour!! Thus they were right in being watchful for, and preaching the imminent return of Christ, as all Christians in all ages should be. But that is another subject. Since at the destruction of Jerusalem, the literal earthly temple neither remained in place, nor did the Romans at that time (A.D. 70) set up a residing idol in the temple, then it seems Jesus simply meant to identify the Roman power as the source of the abomination of desolation (in Mark 13:14) that would (now we know Pauls meaning) later symbolically take up residence in another kind of temple, the Church of God! Yes, the Church (!!) became the spiritual temple of God!! See 1 Peter 2:5, 9 and 10 on this after-the-cross reality. Also, since a king or horn (e.g. the man of sin) in Daniels symbolic prophecies always symbolically refers to a system or kingdom, then one literal Syrian king, Antiochus, (who was two centuries too early on the scene to fulfill Pauls application) could NEVER be the correct application. Interestingly, the same collective use of he and him for all of humanity, or all of Man, i.e. Man who bears Gods image (Gen 1:26, 27), which is clearly seen in Genesis 3:22-24 (Gen 5: 1,2 with Gen. 6:5-7), in Psalms 8: 4-8, and in Deut. 32:8-18, this collective he and him is carried through to the prophecies of Daniel, where a whole system of people, in a kingdom, is referred to as he, or him but as centered in the head of that group. Keep that thought in mind as we look at the Godhead later! Finally, the one-person application to Antiochus fails the test of the Bible because, as a pagan foreigner who never became converted to Judaism or Christianity, he never had the same fathers as the people of God (see Daniel 11:37). Obviously the prophecy would have no concern about the worship of false gods, but the worship of the God of the fathers, thus indicating a power, which converted to Judaism or Christianity, in order to have the same God of the fathers. This again is a powerful clue of a power, which was once pagan, but later adopted the worship traditions of Daniels people. Only Rome fulfils this prophecy, not Antiochus! The French Revolution: France, in its greatest period of political, cultural and religious revolution (after 1789), BRIEFLY abolished all religion, including Christianity, and put in its place a system of atheism (no belief in God), and uplifted the honoring of the goddess of reason, or human will and wisdom. Some scholars, like Uriah Smith, an Adventist pioneer, in his book Daniel and the Revelation, make this application (see Smith on

4 Daniel 11:36-39), and while it is a respected application (satisfying certain predictions in the prophecy), it too fails to take certain things into account. These considerations, in addition to some already mentioned under Antiochus, are as follows: [a] Paul, an inspired Bible writer, clearly shows that the power which exalts himself [itself] above all that is called God (a direct quote from Daniel 11:36, in 2 Thess. 2:4), is a system having the same fathers[forerunners] as Gods people, and is sitting [abiding] in the temple of God, showing himself [itself] that he is God. This clearly means it cannot be an atheistic (or non-religious) power. Only Jews and Christians can claim the temple, and the same fathers, as it relates to this prophecy!! If this power was not to regard [respect] any god (Daniel 11:37), it would do so only by magnifying himself [itself] above all, that is, all [plural or collective] that is called God [capitalized], or that is worshipped (2 Thess. 2:4), and also above every god [common letters], as in Daniel 11:36; not by denying their existence or abolishing them! This, coupled with the following, makes France an unsuitable candidate. [b] The prophecy of Daniel in 11:36-39, is clearly a continuation from verse 31, which shows this same Roman power as the abomination of desolation identified by Jesus in Mark 13:14, a power which both Paul and Daniel show will somehow manage to run its course/influence almost uninterrupted, until the fiery indignation be accomplished at the end (Dan. 11:36 compared with Dan. 7: 11, 2 Thess. 1:7-9 and 2 Thess. 2:7,8). Surface reading, but not more careful scholastic reading and analysis, makes it appear to relate to Antiochus, but certainly the prophecy is not related to him, if we see it through the inspired eyes of Jesus and Paul. Certainly we should allow the Bible to be it own interpreter!! Clearly Jesus was referring to Rome, not France (or Antiochus), as the desolating power of Daniel, because it is the only political power that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple of the Jews after his time (after he left them and their house desolate, according to Jesus), and this power continued and will continue, first in its pagan stage and then in its papal (Roman Catholic) stage- all the while associated with Gods people and His temple throughout the Christian era- until the fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries (Hebrews 10:27) at the time of the end (Dan. 11:35,36). Compare Daniel 7:11, 26 and 2 Thessalonians 2:7, 8). Only one fiery indignation is AT THE END in Daniel! And now we know it is still future. Is it not true that the Papacy (Roman Catholic system) is still, today, a political power with widespread religious influence, having its own country, the smallest in the world (the Vatican), among a sea of nations and people? Is it not true that it directly inherited its power from pagan Rome, and was the most powerful force in European history for over a thousand years? France does not fulfill this specification of having such a *long life span (as an atheistic nation) which had such widespread influence until the fiery indignation of the end! However the Papacy does, and clearly will continue to do so until the end (whenever that will be). PAPAL ROME CONSIDERED: As we have seen so far, only Rome, as a kingdom, or king in Daniels symbolism, fulfills the criteria of having the longest life span, and the most widespread influence,

5 and only Rome, as a conquering empire, became Christian, and thus had the same fathers as the people of God. See Romans 9:24-26 (written by Paul a Roman citizen). But more importantly, only Rome, in its papal (Roman Catholic) stage, which at no time was it ever atheistic (i.e. having no God, or religion), could ever fulfill the specification of sitting in [abiding in] the temple [Church] of God, for a long time, that is, since Pauls time to the present time; not Antiochus or France!! Some wise person once said, if the cap fits wear it and if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck!! Clearly this prophetic Roman duck has quacked loudly, even in blasphemous tones (as we shall see)!! So let us now turn to this application, which seems to be the most suitable, compared to the first two. And in dealing with the details of this application, a few questions need to be asked at this point, to test further whether there is any way the application may not be airtight. Critical Questions to Ask About The Papacy: 1. Has the Papacy (the papal system of Roman Catholicism) as a kingdom ever: [a] magnified himself [itself] above every god [common, god]- Dan. 11:36-7 [b] endeavored to speak marvelous things against [i.e. in dishonor of] the God [capitalized] of gods- verse 36 [c] acknowledged a strange god, whom his [its] fathers [forerunners] never knew- verse38 2. If, since the cross, the Christian Church is symbolically the temple of God, can we correctly think of persons (plural) referred to as every god, and, notice, all [plural] that is called God, being in that temple; persons plural enough for the Papacy to have magnified himself [itself] above [them] all? Is not this a clear reference to a plurality of persons called God (capitalized), and also to a plurality of persons referred to as every god (common noun)? LUCIFERS ADGENDA AS COUNTERFEITER:

The simple answer for all of the above questions is YES (!!) if one takes the Bible (and history) as it reads. Read any good history book on the Papacy, and see again 2 Thess. 2:4, and compare with Daniel 11:37. Now, this yes answer to the above questions must have first considered whom the Bible is referring to as the God of gods, and whom it was referring to as every god, or any god that this Roman power exalts himself ABOVE!! If the king or papal system is a Christian system in name, then the focus of the prophecy could not be the false or pagan gods that the Roman Papacy would oppose or exalt itself above, because: [a] Satan, working through this system (Rev. 13:2), would never oppose or exalt himself above false gods, his own inventions, and [b] Only One truly called God, or is the God of gods would be dishonored by this system sitting in the temple of God showing himself that he is God, while disregarding every god that is legitimately so-called. That was Pauls specific application, in the Bible itself, and explains very much.

6 Satan would do the same thing on earth that he tried to accomplish in heaven, that is, corrupt (like himself) an originally perfect and glorious creation of God, that is, the Church (!!), and use it to try and displace its Creator, that is, through it he would sit in the seat of God in the mount of the congregation (the temple, Gods dwelling place), and exalt it above the fellow stars of God (remember, both angels and men are called sons of God or, better yet, stars, and gods). See Is.14: 12-14 and Ez. 28: 2,12-15 on Satans original blue print of rebellion; which reveals much about how he operates through proud earthly systems of power. FOR THE VERY ENLIGHTENING
CONCLUSION TO THIS PRESENTATION, PLEASE BE SURE TO READ PART 2, ON SATAN THE USURPER, AND THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY. IS THE TRINITY THE STRANGE GOD IN APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY? READ ON!

Author- Derrick Gillespie For more: Call: (876) 385-5982 or 539-4734 E-mail: ddgillespie@live.com Write: Derrick Gillespie, Munro College P.O., St Elizabeth, Jamaica, W.I.

*(SEE THE CONCLUDING AND EXPLOSSIVE PART 2 ON THE NEXT PAGE)

A STRANGE GOD IN APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY!

(CRITICAL INSIGHTS ON DANIEL 11:36-39) By Derrick Gillespie

PART 2
SATAN THE USURPER, AND THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY: Fallen Christianity, described as Babylon (religious confusion) in Revelation 18:2,4 was clearly once a part of Gods true Church, having the same fathers, the same light, and voice as the early Christians (see Rev. 18:23 and Dan. 11:37). It was a pure virgin, but became a harlot (a fallen woman) in symbol- Babylon!! See Isaiah 47:1-9 compared with Revelation 17:1-6, and remember that a woman in prophecy is a church, and only one Church was also a political empire in all of history- the Roman Catholic Church, after emperor Constantine became Christian. This Church even wanted to be like the I AM or like God (see Is. 47:8), and thus was, gradually, no longer suitable to be a virgin bride for God, or Christ (Is. 47:3, 4). Every student of history knows that Roman Catholicism was virtually the visible Christian Church, in name, for over one thousand years after Constantine I made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. But, unfortunately, he and others after him tried to mix politics and religion, and Christianitys pure teachings with those of pagan Rome, to suit the masses. Thus it gradually became a fallen Church, mixing light and darkness, as it were. But how did it aspire to be like God, and how did it introduce a strange god (Daniel 11:36-39)? TO UNDERSTAND SATAN AT WORK THROUGH THIS SYSTEM, GO BACK TO PART 1, AND BE SURE TO READ LUCIFERS ADGENDA, ALONG WITH THE REST OF THAT PRESENTATION. WAS FRANCE, ANTIOCHUS IV, OR THE TRINITY RELATED TO THE STRANGE GOD? SEE PART 1 BEFORE PROCEEDING TO KNOW THE REAL TRUTH! THE STRANGE GOD ENTERS Every student of history knows that the Papacy, as a Christian institution (in name), ascribed to itself and its leadership (the Pope) titles and prerogatives belonging only to Personalities of the Godhead. It should be remembered that only by assuming the place of Christ (Jesus Himself), who is also called I AM (John 8:58, 59) could the Pope ever present himself as the Vicar of the Son of God (or Vicarius Felii Dei), and thus style himself as another God on earth, the Holy Father (after Jesus title, Everlasting Father in 7

8 Is. 9:6). You will notice, dear reader, that the Person being (supposedly) unseated, as God, is Christ, and in His own Church!! Only by teaching falsely that Peter (a man), not the Holy Spirit, succeeded Christ as the Supreme Leader of the Church (Doctrine of Apostolic Succession) could this system ever have a man sit in the seat of God (Ez. 28:2), in His Temple (2 Thess. 2:4), the Church, and claim rights belonging only to divinity. Paul, and Peter, all the early apostles, and the second century Apostolic Fathers knew not of this strange godbecause this is simply what the Pope himself was prophesied to be!! Only by pretending to have the rights and power of God could Roman Catholic priests claim to have the power to DIRECTLY forgive sins against Gods law, or even worse, claim to have the power to literally create Christ from the bread and wine, and then crucify Him, at the Mass, that is creating God [Christ], the Creator of all things (see Ellen White, Great Controversy, 1911, pgs. 59-60). What blasphemous presumption!! Only by falsely teaching that the Pope is infallible (when speaking ex cathedra), in his office of being Christs representative could the Roman Catholic Church claim to do what even God will never do, that is, change His DIVINE Laws in the Ten Commandments. But the Papacy proudly boasts that this it had the divine right to do, even if the Bible commanded no such change. This is the worst form of blasphemy, because only if the pope was higher than God, in authority, could he claim power to adjust or amend His Ten Commandments, which God will never change (see Matt. 7:1518, and Rom. 3:31). A strange god in action indeed, because one truly called God would be the same yesterday, today, and forever!! Thank God the warning about this attempted change was given long ago (Dan. 7:25)!! Lest it be forgotten, it must be remembered too that Roman Catholics also ascribed divine nature and prerogatives to Mary, who they claim is now (after her bodily assumption, or resurrection) in heaven as the Mother of God, and who, more often than not, receives more attention (from Roman Catholics) than Christ her Son, and Savior. Is it not true that she is seen as the living Queen of heaven, and Mediatrix with God (despite what Timothy 2:5 says) and is not true that she is referred to and appealed to more in Roman Catholic prayer than even the members of the Godhead? Is it not true she is called the star of the sea, and is usually depicted in Roman Catholic pictures and paintings with much royal regalia and adornments befitting a divine Queen or goddess? Another strange god indeed, especially considering that she is, today, TRULY dead and asleep in her grave, and never once was so considered in the Bible itself!! Now, what about the Trinity (the three personalities) of the Godhead? Isnt this also a strange god which the fathers knew not? This is the claim of some scholars and modern writers, but, while this aspect of the matter will be analyzed more carefully towards the end of this discourse, note carefully the following at this point:

THE TRINITY- CRITICAL HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS: 1. In just the same way there was no Jew until after Abraham; there was no true Roman Catholic (of the Papacy) until AFTER the conversion of Constantine (after 312 A.D.), and the making of Christianity into the official state religion of the Roman Empire (thus forming Christendom). Before that, all Christians

9 were just simply that; Christians (of Antioch, Rome, or wherever), even being persecuted and martyred by pagan Rome itself, up to Constantine. e.g. Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Polycarp, Peter, Paul, John (all martyrs under Rome) 2. Also, the Papacy (the supreme rule of the Pope through the Roman Catholic Church), or the little horn in prophecy, had no real separate existence as a political force or entity until after the collapse of the political Roman Empire under the emperors, thus coming up after the ten kingdoms arising out of the collapsed Roman Empire after 476 A.D. There was therefore no true Papacy or little horn until the emperors all passed of the scene, despite popes (very important Roman bishops) existed in the Western part of the Roman Empire before this reality. 3. Thus it is not true to say that the trinity doctrine was invented by the Roman Catholics and the Papacy, since many early Christian writers such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Tertullian in the West, Origen in the East, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Athenagoras, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Clement of Alexandria etc. (called Apostolic Fathers, and, or Church Fathers) existed during the period covering the stages of the Christian Church called Ephesus and Smyrna, from about 60 313 A.D., and they wrote about the basic truths of the trinity doctrine, if even in rudimentary form, long before the Roman Catholic system of state religion was founded. During this time the word trinity, and concepts of the eternal co-existence, and unity/similarity of the substance of the distinct Persons of the Godhead already existed alongside basic Arian concepts (evident in early Christian doxologies and written expressions). See the real truth of Trinitarianism existing in Christianity long before the conception and later separate existence of the Papacy at this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/100632914/Papacy-Did-Not-Invent-Trinity The Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. only provided for a universal or catholic (not Roman Catholic), and thus a non-denominational Christian Conference for the airing of the views of Trinitarians and Arians alike. Too many try to confuse people with the adjective catholic, as opposed to the proper noun Roman Catholic!! A Pope (of the later formed Papacy) was not even present at Nicea, and those bishops who could (at this early stage) be called Roman Catholics of the West numbered less than 10 out of over 300 bishops (Christian pastors) in attendance. Later, despite Nicea, semi-Arianism even became the official doctrine of Roman emperors for a time, after Constantine; not Trinitarianism. Interesting!! What is true is that the Christians at Nicea, and after Constantine, simply inherited what Christians taught before, and the Councils simply brought together into official creeds what was being taught before, as well as admittedly, certain errors about the Godhead. They did not invent anything new in Christianity about there being three persons of the Godhead. See again for irrefutable proof: http://www.scribd.com/doc/100632914/Papacy-Did-Not-Invent-Trinity The facts of history are so telling, when properly understood.

The Biblical Basis for the Trinity:

9

10 Wasnt it Paul who (long before Nicea) clearly wrote about the unity of the personalities of the Godhead in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, in a way similar to the unity of the members of the Church, depicted by the unity of the members of one body (in the same passage of 1 Cor. 12). Thus, the head, the arm, the hand and fingers, all have different offices, but belong to the same united body or unit comprised of separate beings. They are distinct, but inseparable, constituent, and intrinsic members of that unit (see the word intrinsic in a good dictionary). One Seventh-day Adventist pioneer, E.J. Waggoner, saw this truth, and once referred to the constituent, and intrinsic Persons of the Eternal Godhead as being so perfectly united that they have the same Spirit (Christ and His Righteousness, 1890). Paul even alluded to Christ, the arm of the Lord (Isaiah 53:1 and 52:10) and the wisdom [reason or logos] and power of God (1 Cor. 1:24), as being headed by the Father, in 1Cor. 11:3, with both working in perfect unity with the Holy Spirit, the hand of the Lord (Ez. 8:1-5) or the finger of God (Luke 11:20). No one should venture to say that Christ, the arm of the Lord or wisdom [reason or logos] and power of God, is not a separate personality from the Father; likewise the Holy Spirit, the hand of the Lord (see Is. 48:16). What a beautiful portrayal of the divine Head, Arm, and Hand or Finger of divinity, all distinct Personalities in the unity of the Godhead; illustrations coming long before the strange god of Roman Catholicism arrived on the scene!! So would the Bible writers of the New Testament, indeed would the later Apostolic Fathers and early Apostles see the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead personalities, illustrated like the members of one body, as a strange god (according to the view of some)? Clearly there is cause for doubting this view. Apostolic writings say otherwise, for instance, and careful Bible study reveals otherwise. And remember too that Church members, and married couples, are depicted just like the members of the Godhead, that is, distinct as personalities, but being in perfect unity, as being of one substance; only that Man (humanity) is flesh and blood (as in, being of one flesh), and God, or divinity, is spirit, in substance. Unity of the Godheads spirit substance still remains mysterious in nature, despite evident analogous similarities in the human sphere. See 1 Cor.11: 3 / 1 Cor.12 and Eph. 5:23-30. Thus to say that the doctrine of the three persons in the Godhead is a strange god, whom the fathers knew not is met with strong Biblical, and historical arguments against this interpretation from the very outset, since even the Bible makes plain, in 2 Thess. 2:3, 4, that divinity opposed by or which the Roman Papacy exalts himself above is that divinity in all that called God (a collective reality)!! However, more will be said about that later. EXALTING THE STRANGE GOD: Only by claiming to be the RIGHTFUL Representative of Jesus (not allowing for the Spirit to be such) could the Pope sit in the seat of God (Ez. 28:2), and only by changing His Law (Dan. 7:25) could he exalt himself above [now notice] all that is called God, and speak marvelous things against [i.e. dishonoring or disrespectfully displacing] the God of gods. Do you remember, dear reader, that Jesus is Biblically not just called God (see Heb. 1:810) but he is called Lord of lords (Revelation 17:14), that is, He is, just like nHis

10

11 Father, supreme to all gods (common noun) and all lords (living or dead), since 1 Cor. 8:5 shows that many earthly gods or lords (similar in meaning) exist by Mans creation. Pharaohs, Caesars, and even Antiochus IV, Epiphanies (mentioned earlier in Part 1), all tried to be living gods, and divine lords, but Jesus is also the God of gods, just like His Father with whom He is equal (see John 20:28, 29 for Jesus being our Lord and God too). Jesus only now worships the Father, as His God, simply because He became a man, and patterns His brethren (Israel and Christians) in all things, and he is also the human Models for us in everything. See Hebrews 2:11-14 for this explosive Bible truth. Which human can take Jesus place in DIVINE authority? None! But doesnt Jesus Himself say that men among his brethren are legitimately called gods? Yes, (see John 10:33-38) but only in a certain context. And this is the key which unlocks much of the truth in Daniel 11:39-36 and which many have ignored in their interpretation. See John 10:34, 35, and Psalm 82:1, 6, 7 where leaders of Israel (priests and elders), like Moses (Ex. 7:1) were appointed as human gods. But they must have been appointed directly by the Godhead, not by their false pretence, and their prerogatives were limited as being simply human representatives of true divinity. Human gods are never, and can never be TRULY divine, in natural substance or authority, like the members of the Godhead. Thus the Papacy is so wrong to elevate the Pope (literally) on a throne to a level equal with Christ, that is, when he functions SO-CALLED ex cathedra in his office. Note carefully how SDA pioneer, A.T. Jones saw the same truth, and how the Pope and Papacy fulfills the prophecy of being the strange god of Daniel 11 (inserts in brackets and emphases mine):
The papacy being professedly the government of God, he who sits at the head of it, sits there as the representative of God. He represents the divine authority; and when he speaks or acts officially, his speech or act is that of God. But to make a man thus the representative of God, is only to clothe human passions with divine power and authority. And being human, he is bound always to act unlike God; and being clothed with irresponsible power, he will often act like the devil. Consequently, in order to make all his actions consistent with his profession, he is compelled to cover them all with the divine attributes, and make everything that he does in his official capacity the act of God. This is precisely the logic and the profession of papal infallibility. It is not claimed that all the pope speaks is infallible; it is only what he speaks officially -- what he speaks ex cathedra, that is, from the throneUnder this theory, he sits

upon that throne as the head of the government of God, and he sits there as God indeed. For the same pope that published this dogma of infallibility, published a book of his speeches, in the preface to which, in the official and approved edition, he is declared to be "The living Christ," "The voice of God; " "He is nature that protests; he is God that condemns." *Thus, in the papacy [no mention of trinity] there is fulfilled to the letter, *in completest meaning the prophecy -- 2 Thess. 2:1-9 - of "the falling away" and the revealing of "that man of sin," "the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. [THUS NO OTHER APPLICATION IS BETTER] Therefore, sitting in the place of God, ruling from that place as God, that which he
speaks from the throne is the word of God, and must be infallible. This is the inevitable logic of the false theocratical theory. -A.T. Jones, The Two Republics, 1891, pg. 567

The Papacy Rivaling The God of gods- The Trinity Revealed:

11

12 Clearly, two main things are taught in Daniel 11:36-39 (cited in 2 Thess. 2:4): [a] Since Jewish kings, priests, and elders (all leaders) were called gods in ancient Israel, representing the people before God, the Papal system has effectively, since the great apostasy in Christianity, exalted himself [itself]above every god [common noun] by eclipsing the truth that every Christian is now (since Calvary) a king, a son of God (i.e. gods in symbol) and a priest, representing himself before the throne of grace. See Revelation 1:6, and 1 Peter 2:5, compared with Hebrews 4:16, and Ephesians 2:18 for this Biblical truth. No Christian needs an earthly priest to approach God for him, since he (himself) is a priest, and Jesus is his Chief Priest, as well his God, the God of [human] gods just like the Father (see John 20:28, 29 and Daniel 11:36). [b] Secondly, Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (quoting directly from Daniel 11:36), teaches that a plurality of personalities is in the Godhead, by showing the Pope also exalting himself above all [plural] that is called God, or that is worshipped. Notice that the plurality is about all that is called [i.e. referred to by the title] God, not a plurality of Gods. Parallel illustration? All that is called Man, or humanity, is a plurality of individuals, yet there still remains a numeric oneness of humanity. There is (only) one humanity, as there is (only) one divinity, or Godhead, but within the one existence, or specie, is a group of persons. It is self-evident that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 could not be about human gods, but, rather, the God of gods. Note the qualification made by Paul- that [which] is worshipped in the temple of God is what the Papacy exalts himself [itself] above. This becomes even more interesting!! MRS. WHITE SHEDS FURTHER LIGHT: Mrs. White, the main Adventist writer, in The Great Controversy, pages 50-51, says (rightly) that this particular verse (2 Thess. 2:4) shows the man of sin foretold in prophecy as opposing [rivaling] and exalting himself above God [singular]. And yet in the Greek it is written with an inherent plural/collective shade of meaning, as it relates to the Godhead (indicated by various Bible commentaries). Clearly, she reworded all [plural] that is called God, to mean simply God [singular]. She does the same thing, in commenting on Genesis 3:5, in the same book, on pages 531-532, about Satan tempting man to be like gods (the words of Satan), at a time when only the concept of only one Godhead existed in the mind of man; the same Godhead speaking inclusively as an us (Gen.3: 22-24). That is what is meant by plurality in unity, and unity in plurality, as it concerns the personalities [plural] of the Godhead [singular], not Gods of the Godhead. Have you ever wondered, dear reader, why Satan, who knew the real truth about the makeup of the Godhead, influenced so many counterfeit trios and triads (divine threes) in false religions? Have you ever wondered why Jesus limited the Godhead to three Personalities with one family name? Matthew 28:19. Have you considered that these same three Personalities Mrs. White could not escape the reality of, and had to write about them as the Heavenly Trio of three living personalities or the three holiest BEINGS in heaven? See a common thread

12

13 throughout? Thus if the trinity was a strange concept to the Bible then Mrs. White would write against it in clear unmistakable tones, calling it by name! She would be duty bound to name this strange god! Did she? Well let the facts speak for themselves to all true Seventh-day Adventist, and non-Adventist readers. *BOTH THE POPE AND THE VIRGIN MARY ARE ASCRIBED DIVINE AND ROYAL TITLES
THE EARLY CHRISTIANS, OR FATHERS, NEVER KNEW, AND ARE WORSHIPPED, OR HONORED WITH GOLD, AND SILVERAND PLEASANT THINGS BY THE PAPACY- DAN. 11:38,39). MRS. WHITE WROTE ABOUT, AND AGAINST BOTH IDEAS, AND OTHER SERIOUS ERRORS OF THE PAPACY, BUT DID NOT EVEN NAME THE TRINITY, IN THE GREAT CONTROVERSY, AND INDEED IN ALL OF HER WRITINGS!

Is this how she would deal with this matter, if indeed it was the strange god of Daniels prophecy? I rather think not! All true Seventh-day Adventists take her at her word when she says, all truths [of serious import] are immortalized in my writings (E.G White, Manuscript Release, pgs. 22, 23). And yet the view of the trinity being the strange god of apostate Christianity is not named and immortalized in her writings!! What is immortalized in her writings are truths resembling closely the trinity doctrine, but with certain key differences (but still containing pre-Nicene Trinitarianism). THE STRANGE GOD MUST BE ALIEN TO DIVINE NATURE: Now, if the Anti-Christ (Satans pawn) is trying to sit in the seat of Christ (to be the god of this world), then how can someone not see that for the Anti-Christ system, the Papacy (despite itself), to acknowledge and recognize the Father, the Son, and their Holy Spirit as all that is called God [the Godhead], that this could not be the fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel 11:36-39, or in 2 Thessalonians 2:4? The strange god would have to be someone introduced whom the Bible never represented as divine, that is, one who (just like Lucifer) can never be one of (using the words of the Adventist writer, Mrs. White) the three living personalities of the Heavenly Trio, who are each the fullness of the Godhead, and who should each and all be SERVED!! Are the Father, the Son, and their Holy Spirit really a Trio of three living Personalities of the one Eternal Godhead? Can any of the Three be the fullness of the Godhead, and be inferior to the others? Arent they all divine (God in nature), and arent they all called God, and Lord? The answers are all obviously yes!! Mrs. White, the leading pioneer in Adventism certainly thought so. Confirm her beliefs in John 1:1/ John 8:58, 59/ John 20:28, 29/ Is. 48:16, Heb. 1:8, 10/ 2 Cor. 3:17, 18/ Rev. 1:4, 5/ and Matt. 28:19. Is Mary, or the Pope, divine, that is, rightly called God (whether in name or nature)? Are they any part of the Heavenly Trio or Eternal Godhead, acting together in perfect unity as the body members depicted in 1 Corinthians 11:3, and 12:4-6. NO!! Thus, only someone who claims to have even more light than the visions of Mrs. White in Adventism would apply the prophecy of the strange god to the Trinity of persons in the Godhead!! Everywhere the strange god was foreshadowed it was hinted that humans, or the man of sin (Satans pawn) would be trying to sit in Gods seat, and show himself to be God. See again Ez. 28:2, Is. 14:16, 2 Thess. 2:3, 4, and Rev. 17:1 about the role to be played by humans as the pawns of Satan, to be used to replace God, or sit in the seat of God. *(SEE FINAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE NEXT PAGE)

13

14

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Now, it is interesting that even though Uriah Smith (mentioned in Part 1) applied the prophecy of Daniel 11: 3639 to the French Revolution, notice that he however applies 2 Thessalonians 2: 4 to the Pope changing the Law and the Sabbath of God, because the Pope sets himself up [not the Holy Spirit] as the one for all to look to for authority, in the place of God (Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, pg. 605). Nowhere in this crucial book, even in the 1897 unedited version, does he name the trinity as a strange god, or even highlights it as an error, but he too, like Mrs. White, named and wrote against the Roman Catholic veneration of Mary and the Pope (with his priests) as errors of Babylon. Strange that he too (just like Mrs. White) did not use this opportunity to present the Trinity as the strange god, in his main work on prophecy, despite he wrote so much about the Papacy, and was even at one time demonstrably anti-Trinitarian in his written expressions!! Why this significant and curious absence of the Trinity in this significant work on prophecy, as also in Mrs. Whites main work, Great Controversy? The time of their publishing is the answer. Please see my research paper or book manuscript, entitled Indisputable Facts About the Trinity Doctrine in Adventism (about the Trinity Accepted in Adventism Before 1915) at this link: http://www.scribd.com/documents! The SDA pioneers certainly did NOT always see the trinity of Godhead persons as the strange god of Bible prophecy, especially after Adventism eventually came full circle to espouse a certain type of trinity even before 1915!! The head of the Papacy (the Pope) was seen as the fulfillment of who the strange god is, in completest meaning, as so clearly stated by one of our very own SDA pioneer, A.T. Jones!! Now, regarding *new and fanciful theories, cropping up among certain S.D.A. sects today, sects that present the trinity as the strange god, and which discredit mainstream Adventism, relegating it to the ranks of Babylon, where all are called to come out of her, it must be known that clearly these theories fulfill another prophecy, which states: THE LORD HAS NOT SPOKEN BY ANY MESSENGER WHO CALLS THE CHURCH [S.D.A. Church] BABYLON It is not to be disorganized, or broken up into independent atoms. There is not the least consistency in this; there is not the least evidence that such a thing WILL BE. Those who heed this false message [that it will be otherwise], and try to leaven [influence] others will be deceived, and prepared to receive advanced delusions [errors convincingly closely to, or resembling truth], and they will come to nought. There is , in some of the members of the Church [S.D.A.], pride, self14

15 sufficiency, stubborn unbelief, and a refusal to yield their ideas, although evidence may be piled upon evidence, which makes the message of the Laodicean church applicable. But that will not blot out the Church, that it will not exist [as an organized denomination]. Let both wheat and tares grow together until the harvest. Then it is the angels [not overzealous men] that do the separation. I warn the Seventh-day Adventist Church to be careful how you receive every new notion, and those who claim to have great light [on the omega heresy, for instance]. The character of their work seems to be to accuse [doctrinally and otherwise] and tear down [the church]. My brother, I would say to you, be careful. Go not one step further in the path you have entered upon [to denounce, and influence others away from the S.D.A. church, for whatever reason]. -E.G. White, Letter 16, 1893 (cited in Selected Messages, Vol 2, pg. 690) *N.B.- Compare similar sentiments in Testimonies to Ministers, Chapter 1, and Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 9, pg. 258, by Mrs. White. Evidently there is no need for further commentary at this point, but only to say that this prophecy is also immortalized in her writings, and calls all that upholds this Adventist pioneer to listen. He that has an ear let him hear him what the Spirit says to the Churches. Amen!

Author- Derrick Gillespie For more: Call: (876) 385-5982 or 539-4734 E-mail: ddgillespie@live.com Write: Derrick Gillespie, Munro College P.O., St Elizabeth, Jamaica, W.I.

15