Does the prophecy in Daniel 2 prove the Catholic Church's indestructibility?

[marineland]

The video interprets the vision of Daniel 2. The channel is "Shameless Popery, by Joe
Heschmeyer. 

#1 begins the video with an analysis of the stone being the Roman Catholic Church.

#2 begins a discussion about how the Mormon Church interpreted the stone cut out
of the mountain. Starts at about the 15:27 minute mark.

#3 seems to describe the dispensationalist view, that it is fulfilled at the Second 
Coming.

The last part gives a summary, labelled "What does Daniel 2 prove about the Church"
(35:35).

I believe there will be ten kings which come out of some sort of a revived Roman Empire.
They will receive a kingdom in the future. The beast of Revelation 17 is the same beast
that Christ defeats at the Second Coming, in Revelation 19.

"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom
as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, 
and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with 
the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of 
kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful".

"And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, 
and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with 
fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give 
their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled" (Rev 17).

"And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together 
to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast 
was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with 
which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that 
worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with 
brimstone" (Rev 19).

I don't believe the Roman Catholic Church is that kingdom established in the days
of Christ because it co-existed with the ungodly kingdoms which currently existed
then and those that would eventually form when the Roman Empire fell, but was not
conquered by another kingdom like the progressive stages of the statue reveals.

IMO, Daniel 2 does not depict the kingdom of Christ growing gradually while those 
other ungodly systems still continued to exist side by side throughout millennia.

[The Nehor]

I believe the prophecy in Daniel is ex evintu prophecy about the successor states of Alexander’s empire and were written during the Maccabean Revolt with hopes that the stone cut out would be the new reborn nation of Israel. Then they coded the participants behind imagery and backdated the writing by a few centuries  to give plausible deniability about this being in any way treasonous. Just in case. For the same reason Rome became Babylon in the Book of Revelation. The hopes in the prophecy did not come to pass.

I find it very clumsy to try to fit the prophecy into a structure where the early parts happened relatively close together and then suddenly the last bit is over two millenia later.

[marineland]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I find it very clumsy to try to fit the prophecy into a structure where the early parts happened relatively close together and then suddenly the last bit is over two millenia later.

What about the last week in Daniel's 70 Weeks prophecy?  Already fulfilled?

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, marineland said:

What about the last week in Daniel's 70 Weeks prophecy?  Already fulfilled?

That was what the writer hoped would happen and it didn’t.

[Tony uk]

Normally, the arguments that exist against the Roman Catholic. Seemed to take shape in their present shape, around the sixteenth century, when the likes of Luther, Calvin and their peers were spearheading the protestant reformation.

However, from my own perspective. The Catholic Church has been in existence for two thousand years. Although, some may date to the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century, when at the council of Nicea. The Catholic Faith was taken on board by the Empire.

It is in my own thought process, as I see it. In the western world at least. Established Churches take there stem from the Roman Catholic Church, which grew from the early Church Fathers.

Imo, it is easy for people, outside the Catholic Church. To try and interpret parts of the Bible, as showing the Catholic Church to being the dreaded 'Whore of Babylon'. And the Papacy as being the product of wrong. But maybe, just maybe, people would like to reconsider there perspective on the matter.

Edited April 10 by Tony uk
Spelling/Grammar correction.

[3DOP]

On 4/8/2026 at 3:33 PM, marineland said:

The video interprets the vision of Daniel 2. The channel is "Shameless Popery, by Joe
Heschmeyer. 

#1 begins the video with an analysis of the stone being the Roman Catholic Church.

#2 begins a discussion about how the Mormon Church interpreted the stone cut out
of the mountain. Starts at about the 15:27 minute mark.

#3 seems to describe the dispensationalist view, that it is fulfilled at the Second 
Coming.

The last part gives a summary, labelled "What does Daniel 2 prove about the Church"
(35:35).

I believe there will be ten kings which come out of some sort of a revived Roman Empire.
They will receive a kingdom in the future. The beast of Revelation 17 is the same beast
that Christ defeats at the Second Coming, in Revelation 19.

"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom
as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, 
and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with 
the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of 
kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful".

"And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, 
and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with 
fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give 
their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled" (Rev 17).

"And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together 
to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast 
was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with 
which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that 
worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with 
brimstone" (Rev 19).

I don't believe the Roman Catholic Church is that kingdom established in the days
of Christ because it co-existed with the ungodly kingdoms which currently existed
then and those that would eventually form when the Roman Empire fell, but was not
conquered by another kingdom like the progressive stages of the statue reveals.

IMO, Daniel 2 does not depict the kingdom of Christ growing gradually while those 
other ungodly systems still continued to exist side by side throughout millennia.

I admire Heschmeyer. I was at a conference where he spoke this year. But I didn't look at the video. Its probably a personal thing. I was into eschatology years ago. I have embraced more than one truly innovative and appealing interpretation of Daniel and Revelation and they are contradictory. What does that imply? That clever, appealing, and innovative interpretations of all Scripture can be false. It is easy to embrace one teaching, because, it is so clever, and admirable in its presentation, and keep admiring. But it helps us see our folly if we seriously review other biblical interpretations that are also brilliant, innovative, etc. How does one decide? That was my quandary as a young and naive Baptist minister who started looking in to what other churches taught. I had mocked the supposed silly beliefs of other Christians before I decided to let them explain their own views. I learned that none of them were crazy! I learned that successful error is never internally incoherent or intellectually dissatisfying to its adherents.

I have stated many times that "Scripture alone never resolves doctrinal controversy". Maybe it should go on my gravestone! Heh. I think it is impossible to identify the one, true Church, with apostolic authority from Scripture. The Church Christ founded needs to be plausible from Scripture, of course. But I can easily eliminate all but two or maybe three of the thousands of different Christian churches that disagree with each other without opening the Bible. It is much easier to identify the meaning of Scripture through the Church than to identify the true Church through Scripture.

For what it is worth, in my opinion...  

3DOP

Edited April 10 by 3DOP

[marineland]

On 4/10/2026 at 5:22 AM, Tony uk said:

However, from my own perspective. The Catholic Church has been in existence for two thousand years.

I couldn't find any Catholic teachings indicating the 70-year prophecy has been
fulfilled.

[The Nehor]

On 4/10/2026 at 4:22 AM, Tony uk said:

Normally, the arguments that exist against the Roman Catholic. Seemed to take shape in their present shape, around the sixteenth century, when the likes of Luther, Calvin and their peers were spearheading the protestant reformation.

However, from my own perspective. The Catholic Church has been in existence for two thousand years. Although, some may date to the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century, when at the council of Nicea. The Catholic Faith was taken on board by the Empire.

It is in my own thought process, as I see it. In the western world at least. Established Churches take there stem from the Roman Catholic Church, which grew from the early Church Fathers.

Imo, it is easy for people, outside the Catholic Church. To try and interpret parts of the Bible, as showing the Catholic Church to being the dreaded 'Whore of Babylon'. And the Papacy as being the product of wrong. But maybe, just maybe, people would like to reconsider there perspective on the matter.

There is a survivorship bias here. While it was based to a degree on the church fathers there were lots of Christianities around that made similar claims. The proto-orthodox movement won out so it is easy to see it as a continuous tradition yet plenty of other versions of Christianity could have won out. Then add the differences that have slowly slipped in over time while others have slipped out. The Church Fathers would be confused or bewildered by quite a bit of what there is in Catholicism. Probably even more by Protestantism  (and Mormonism) that claim to be a restoration in some sense of what the Church Fathers believed.

[3DOP]

Hey The Nehor. I know some of what you don't believe. But what would you have us replace our faith with? What positive religious beliefs should we have if any? We can't replace something with nothing. Your quotes from above will be in bold below.

There is a survivorship bias here.

Yes. I have assumed that if a truth claim is made at one time and is not maintained historically, that I have a reasonable excuse to not explore an extinct belief. If a claim to truth disappears or only returns from time to time, it is not something worth entertaining as God's truth. Whenever we allow a date for the Catholic Church beginning, one has to admit that it has survived uninterruptedly for many centuries in a recognizable, visible form. Does anyone believe in something that doesn't survive? Survival is important, no? If it goes away in history, is it not safe to ignore it?

While it was based to a degree on the church fathers there were lots of Christianities around that made similar claims.

If survival is not a factor, on what basis would you recommend any of the other "lots of Christianities around that made similar claims"? Surely God doesn't expect His people to have to sift through a lot of ancient records to become even moderately familiar with them. What if I somehow came to believe that one of them was God's lost religion? Then what? Would we be obliged to try to find others? It does not seem fitting or plausible. I am not ashamed to be biased in favor of a surviving religion. I am a sola survivalist!    

The proto-orthodox movement won out so it is easy to see it as a continuous tradition yet plenty of other versions of Christianity could have won out.

I don't believe there are many who hold that God's truth could lose. I am not trying to prove the Catholic Church is true. But a teaching that isn't around is impotent. Even if it were "true", how could God expect people to believe in it.

Then add the differences that have slowly slipped in over time while others have slipped out. The Church Fathers would be confused or bewildered by quite a bit of what there is in Catholicism.

I can grant that to a point. I suggest many of the Fathers would not be too surprised at a transformation in some of the ceremonies that have changed as doctrinal developments arrive over the centuries. It is hard to match mature adults with their baby pictures. After getting over some initial surprise from the Church at 2,000 years old, they would need to single out the Catholic Church by her unchanging visible ecclesiology and Her Sacramental life. After that they would need to examine and begin to appreciate what has changed ceremonially and advanced by development of doctrine. Ultimately they would need to identify with the Catholic Church by what has been retained as well as by what the Church has grown into. Going back to the baby church, she is well past the time of baby clothes. An older church must dress Herself accordingly. They couldn't be scandalized because she has left some customs behind and adopted new ones. If they remained bewildered, they shouldn't have believed in a stagnant, never changing church.

Catholics do not believe that there is public revelation after the Apostles, true. A lot of Christians think that means that like Adam, the Church arrived fully grown. The best thing they think they can do is imitate the past the best they can. No. That is impractical for a living, surviving Church that grows with the ages and like Jesus, was born as an infant. 

Probably even more by Protestantism  (and Mormonism) that claim to be a restoration in some sense of what the Church Fathers believed.

Maybe. There have always been and will be non-Catholic movements within what I would call broadly, Christianity. Reformation or Restoration, we can see today elements of grace in communities that are separated from us, but not completely detached from the Catholic Church. I don't see how the Fathers could be very surprised at the same thing in our era as the "plenty of other Christians that could have won out" in their own eras.

Thanks for your consideration,

Rory

 

 

Edited April 13 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

On 4/13/2026 at 11:13 AM, 3DOP said:

Hey The Nehor. I know some of what you don't believe. But what would you have us replace our faith with? What positive religious beliefs should we have if any? We can't replace something with nothing. Your quotes from above will be in bold below.

I have no idea. That is what I am trying to figure out. I admit that it is unsettling not to have solid answers to questions like this but not having something to fill a void in my understanding if I discard something doesn’t mean that what was there was accurate.

On 4/13/2026 at 11:13 AM, 3DOP said:

There is a survivorship bias here.

Yes. I have assumed that if a truth claim is made at one time and is not maintained historically, that I have a reasonable excuse to not explore an extinct belief. If a claim to truth disappears or only returns from time to time, it is not something worth entertaining as God's truth. Whenever we allow a date for the Catholic Church beginning, one has to admit that it has survived uninterruptedly for many centuries in a recognizable, visible form. Does anyone believe in something that doesn't survive? Survival is important, no? If it goes away in history, is it not safe to ignore it?

It is unfortunate not to know it. The LDS faith posits that a long extinct belief was correct and had to come back. Virtually all Christian faiths accept a time before their faith arrived. Judaism wasn’t really proto-Christianity and Judaism as we understand it doesn’t really go back that far. So if some variant of the Christian faith is correct then it wasn’t around for a time and was openly ridiculed by the Greco-Roman world it appeared in for many reasons but one of the main reasons was how new it was. They saw antiquity as proof that their gods were strong. I don’t share their conviction that that is correct.

On 4/13/2026 at 11:13 AM, 3DOP said:

While it was based to a degree on the church fathers there were lots of Christianities around that made similar claims.

If survival is not a factor, on what basis would you recommend any of the other "lots of Christianities around that made similar claims"? Surely God doesn't expect His people to have to sift through a lot of ancient records to become even moderately familiar with them. What if I somehow came to believe that one of them was God's lost religion? Then what? Would we be obliged to try to find others? It does not seem fitting or plausible. I am not ashamed to be biased in favor of a surviving religion. I am a sola survivalist!    

I am not sure what I think God expects or whether God expects anything of us or if God exists at all.

On 4/13/2026 at 11:13 AM, 3DOP said:

The proto-orthodox movement won out so it is easy to see it as a continuous tradition yet plenty of other versions of Christianity could have won out.

I don't believe there are many who hold that God's truth could lose. I am not trying to prove the Catholic Church is true. But a teaching that isn't around is impotent. Even if it were "true", how could God expect people to believe in it.

This goes back to Christianity not always being on the Earth. In the LDS faith I heard the idea that God wouldn’t let the truth lose was false since the Jews (to some degree) lost the truth why couldn’t Christianity? I am admittedly less convinced that Judaism had some ‘truth’ that Christianity recovered from Judaism but that is a common narrative.

On 4/13/2026 at 11:13 AM, 3DOP said:

Then add the differences that have slowly slipped in over time while others have slipped out. The Church Fathers would be confused or bewildered by quite a bit of what there is in Catholicism.

I can grant that to a point. I suggest many of the Fathers would not be too surprised at a transformation in some of the ceremonies that have changed as doctrinal developments arrive over the centuries. It is hard to match mature adults with their baby pictures. After getting over some initial surprise from the Church at 2,000 years old, they would need to single out the Catholic Church by her unchanging visible ecclesiology and Her Sacramental life. After that they would need to examine and begin to appreciate what has changed ceremonially and advanced by development of doctrine. Ultimately they would need to identify with the Catholic Church by what has been retained as well as by what the Church has grown into. Going back to the baby church, she is well past the time of baby clothes. An older church must dress Herself accordingly. They couldn't be scandalized because she has left some customs behind and adopted new ones. If they remained bewildered, they shouldn't have believed in a stagnant, never changing church.

Catholics do not believe that there is public revelation after the Apostles, true. A lot of Christians think that means that like Adam, the Church arrived fully grown. The best thing they think they can do is imitate the past the best they can. No. That is impractical for a living, surviving Church that grows with the ages and like Jesus, was born as an infant. 

Oh, I definitely expect change over time. That is a given. One of the things my best history professor taught was that any time a culture claims that their practices (relgious, cultural, economic, etc) extend unchanged back to time immemorial get very very skeptical. We have lots of cultures that have made those claims and every time we can check it turns out not to be true. I have joked that the LDS Church should be approaching its Councils phase soon. Starts in a burst of revelation and miracles and goes on like that for a while and then slowly becomes more institutional and operating more and more out of practicality slowly changing in ways that many won’t notice. There have been three eras of different conceptions of sealing practices in the Church and I bet less than 5% of members know much of anything about the previous models.

On 4/13/2026 at 11:13 AM, 3DOP said:

Probably even more by Protestantism  (and Mormonism) that claim to be a restoration in some sense of what the Church Fathers believed.

Maybe. There have always been and will be non-Catholic movements within what I would call broadly, Christianity. Reformation or Restoration, we can see today elements of grace in communities that are separated from us, but not completely detached from the Catholic Church. I don't see how the Fathers could be very surprised at the same thing in our era as the "plenty of other Christians that could have won out" in their own eras.

Thanks for your consideration,

Rory

My understanding is that there was a time where the gnostics likely outnumbered the proto-orthodox and a gnostic version of Christianity was the first to attempt a systemic doctrinal structure. I don’t find it terribly convincing but it was clever and interesting. Also I have to admit I have a secret love for the shade that the gnostics and proto-orthodox were throwing at each other. Wow, those guys were good at character assassination.

[3DOP]

On 4/14/2026 at 11:57 PM, The Nehor said:

I have no idea. That is what I am trying to figure out. I admit that it is unsettling not to have solid answers to questions like this but not having something to fill a void in my understanding if I discard something doesn’t mean that what was there was accurate.

It is unfortunate not to know it. The LDS faith posits that a long extinct belief was correct and had to come back. Virtually all Christian faiths accept a time before their faith arrived. Judaism wasn’t really proto-Christianity and Judaism as we understand it doesn’t really go back that far. So if some variant of the Christian faith is correct then it wasn’t around for a time and was openly ridiculed by the Greco-Roman world it appeared in for many reasons but one of the main reasons was how new it was. They saw antiquity as proof that their gods were strong. I don’t share their conviction that that is correct.

I am not sure what I think God expects or whether God expects anything of us or if God exists at all.

This goes back to Christianity not always being on the Earth. In the LDS faith I heard the idea that God wouldn’t let the truth lose was false since the Jews (to some degree) lost the truth why couldn’t Christianity? I am admittedly less convinced that Judaism had some ‘truth’ that Christianity recovered from Judaism but that is a common narrative.

Oh, I definitely expect change over time. That is a given. One of the things my best history professor taught was that any time a culture claims that their practices (relgious, cultural, economic, etc) extend unchanged back to time immemorial get very very skeptical. We have lots of cultures that have made those claims and every time we can check it turns out not to be true. I have joked that the LDS Church should be approaching its Councils phase soon. Starts in a burst of revelation and miracles and goes on like that for a while and then slowly becomes more institutional and operating more and more out of practicality slowly changing in ways that many won’t notice. There have been three eras of different conceptions of sealing practices in the Church and I bet less than 5% of members know much of anything about the previous models.

My understanding is that there was a time where the gnostics likely outnumbered the proto-orthodox and a gnostic version of Christianity was the first to attempt a systemic doctrinal structure. I don’t find it terribly convincing but it was clever and interesting. Also I have to admit I have a secret love for the shade that the gnostics and proto-orthodox were throwing at each other. Wow, those guys were good at character assassination.

One paragraph at a time. Hi, The Nehor. This is for you. I want to include others. But you others will figure it out if you like by reading the preceding posts.

Yes. Good point. But as one tries to find a replacement, journey is a necessary exercise. It might providentially take all of our years? Are you familiar with Oscar Wilde? His story of wit and talent and unhappiness with nothingness until his very last moments fills my eyes with tears just thinking about God's goodness. Good Oscar Wilde, ora pro nobis. You might not find the biography by Joseph Pearce as edifying as I did. But may we all find rest and peace, if for just a final moment, even in this life.

Antiquity can be wrong, yes, I must grant the point. Judaism as who knows it doesn't really go back that far? Clearly, it was religion on the move. The author of the letter to the Hebrews, however we date it, argues for some essentials which extend back to before Moses (Melchisedec), through a later time when mistakenly read as perennially applicable, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims might think they learn that they should wipe out their enemies. Later Judaism believed in an "afterlife" that was very bleak at best. The Deutoro-canonicals which Catholics accept can act as a helpful bridge to understand the Pharisee/Sadducee tension. The dead can benefit from prayers? A far cry from the desolate "Pit" of the dead Psalmist. Anyway, this is why, more than ever, I can only believe in a religion that occasionally makes mistakes, or put better, hasn't realized the implications of its own teachings. See Philemon on slavery; it was getting better, but not perfect. I can't dismiss Mormonism because of polygamy or the priesthood ban, while I have Catholic saints who urge and enforce that the state should outlaw non-Catholic beliefs. Given a lot of change, I still see essential unity of religion from the fall of Adam (not necessarily literal history), from Noah to Abraham, from Moses to David, and from Jesus to the LDS President or Pope Leo. 

Next paragraph/sentence. If God is good, He couldn't expect us to believe in truth that isn't revealed while we live. That is what I meant, The Nehor, regarding what God expects. I wasn't presuming His existence or goodness. But if He neither exists, nor is good, I am morally free to ignore unreasonable expectations. And a good God will punish no one for a religion that isn't around while they are alive. Nor would He "expect" anyone to believe in a religion that is in some places, but which is not known by an individual soul who hasn't heard. Heaven will be populated by good souls who did their best in the dark, and who never knew of Moses or Jesus and had at least a hunch and acted upon the idea that God is good. I can't believe in a bad God. But if some do, at least they shouldn't shouldn't fear or obey such a monster. Let us if we don't know, do good, happy to hope that perhaps paradoxically God is good in this world of His, that is full of pain and trial. God is love. Maybe some can get credit for believing in love? I dunno though. Take courage, The Nehor.

Its 3:30 AM Central Time in the US where I live. I should be closing brown eyes instead of getting wired on a screen. Retirement is great, but one still likes to be awake with one's loved ones and neighbors. I liked your post a lot. I appreciate your candor. May you receive the light for which you yearn, and may I as well. The journey, as Mr. Wilde teaches us, is not nothing. It is Something. 

God bless,

3DOP 

Edited April 18 by 3DOP

[RevTestament]

On 4/9/2026 at 2:19 PM, marineland said:

What about the last week in Daniel's 70 Weeks prophecy?  Already fulfilled?

Yep. It is the 7 years war. In the midst of the week or 70 AD the temple was destroyed and the "sacrifice ceased" right on cue. Masada was the end in 73 AD. and the city was destroyed as prophesied by Daniel.