trying2understand
New Member
Bumped again for Bob because he has not addressed this as yet.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Vicarius filii Dei is still making the rounds apparently.
- Thread starter mioque
- Start date
trying2understand
New Member
Bob, since the title was first applied to Peter the Apostle, do you also apply the number 666 to him?
As the first to have that title wouldn't it be most relevant?
Was it not Peter whom Christ called Satan?
Was it not Peter who denied Christ three times?
How about it, Bob?
How far are you willing to take this thing?
As the first to have that title wouldn't it be most relevant?
Was it not Peter whom Christ called Satan?
Was it not Peter who denied Christ three times?
How about it, Bob?
How far are you willing to take this thing?
BOB
"When the Donation of Constantine was forged in the 2nd half of the 8th century (most likely in the year 754), the title of Vicar of Christ was an universal honorific applied to all bishops."
I wrote this on 3 september on this very thread, so despite your claims I don't take the position that the Donation of Constantine was written in the 19th century.
"When the Donation of Constantine was forged in the 2nd half of the 8th century (most likely in the year 754), the title of Vicar of Christ was an universal honorific applied to all bishops."
I wrote this on 3 september on this very thread, so despite your claims I don't take the position that the Donation of Constantine was written in the 19th century.
To clarify, a bit of SDA church history.
Starting in the early days of that movement it was considered an important piece of doctrine that the RC church was on the side of Satan*.
'Proof' that the papacy was the beast of Revelations comes in real handy if you take such a position.
So some people who by the standards of the time weren't very educated (they knew some Latin but no Koine Greek or Hebrew), started making up titles for the pope in Latin that sounded convincing to them.
Eventually they stumbled on Vicarivs Filii Dei.
Now they had to place it somewhere.
In the beginning they used the door of the Vatican. Later they used the pope's tiara (presumably because it is much more dramatic).
Eventually people started asking embarassing questions. So finally some real researchers had to be deployed to find 'proof' that Vicarivs Filii Dei was a real papal title.
They discovered that Vicarivs Filii Dei had been used by somebody else once before in the history of Christianity.
By the guy that wrote the Donation of Constantine in the 700's.
So this became the final version of the myth, Vicarivs Filii Dei is now supposedly a semi-secret title practically never used because it is evidence of the evil nature of Catholicism. And the Papist Pigs know it!!!
*Some cynical folks would see this
anti-catholicism as a manifestation of 19th century American xenophobia directed at the new waves of immigrants who were mostly RC, but let's not dwell on that.
Starting in the early days of that movement it was considered an important piece of doctrine that the RC church was on the side of Satan*.
'Proof' that the papacy was the beast of Revelations comes in real handy if you take such a position.
So some people who by the standards of the time weren't very educated (they knew some Latin but no Koine Greek or Hebrew), started making up titles for the pope in Latin that sounded convincing to them.
Eventually they stumbled on Vicarivs Filii Dei.
Now they had to place it somewhere.
In the beginning they used the door of the Vatican. Later they used the pope's tiara (presumably because it is much more dramatic).
Eventually people started asking embarassing questions. So finally some real researchers had to be deployed to find 'proof' that Vicarivs Filii Dei was a real papal title.
They discovered that Vicarivs Filii Dei had been used by somebody else once before in the history of Christianity.
By the guy that wrote the Donation of Constantine in the 700's.
So this became the final version of the myth, Vicarivs Filii Dei is now supposedly a semi-secret title practically never used because it is evidence of the evil nature of Catholicism. And the Papist Pigs know it!!!
*Some cynical folks would see this
anti-catholicism as a manifestation of 19th century American xenophobia directed at the new waves of immigrants who were mostly RC, but let's not dwell on that.
"John was writing during the time of the "Roman" Empire. hmmmm "What language" would their "titles" be in??"
Sighh..
By the beginning of the first century A.D. the Roman empire had 2 official languages 1 was a bit more dominant in the Western half of the empire (Latin), and another one in the Eastern half (Koine Greek).
Both in Israel and on Patmos the officials used Koine Greek and not Latin as the primary language.
Sighh..
By the beginning of the first century A.D. the Roman empire had 2 official languages 1 was a bit more dominant in the Western half of the empire (Latin), and another one in the Eastern half (Koine Greek).
Both in Israel and on Patmos the officials used Koine Greek and not Latin as the primary language.
trying2understand
New Member
Hey there Bob,
Irenaeus gave some advice that you may want to consider.
"It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved."
Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies Book V
BTW, if you and the SDA are wrong about this, that would make you all false prophets, would it not?
Irenaeus gave some advice that you may want to consider.
"It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved."
Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies Book V
BTW, if you and the SDA are wrong about this, that would make you all false prophets, would it not?
GraceSaves
New Member
Bob,
I'm just beginning my study of Latin. Please do explain, with non-biased sources, why the letter V is substituted for U, when V is already its own letter, corresponding to the number 5. Where does this V-for-U transaction come into play in Roman history?
And, please respond to the post about the Donation of Constantine not coming from Catholic sources. It's been reposted several times for you, but you have not addressed it.
I'm just beginning my study of Latin. Please do explain, with non-biased sources, why the letter V is substituted for U, when V is already its own letter, corresponding to the number 5. Where does this V-for-U transaction come into play in Roman history?
And, please respond to the post about the Donation of Constantine not coming from Catholic sources. It's been reposted several times for you, but you have not addressed it.
To make Vicarius Filii Dei add up to 666, you have to turn the U into a V (which is legitimate), and you have to take each single digit separately. But this doesn't really make sense. Take a look at the phrase :
VICarIVs fILII deI.
When you do that, you get groupings of numbers which you must read differently than if they were by themselves. So VIC = 94 (not 106!), IV = 4 (as you learned in grade school), ILII would have to be 51 (not 53), D = 500, I = 1. Total: 94 + 4 + 51 + 500 + 1 = 650. Sixteen short. Too bad.
VICarIVs fILII deI.
When you do that, you get groupings of numbers which you must read differently than if they were by themselves. So VIC = 94 (not 106!), IV = 4 (as you learned in grade school), ILII would have to be 51 (not 53), D = 500, I = 1. Total: 94 + 4 + 51 + 500 + 1 = 650. Sixteen short. Too bad.
GraceSaves
New Member
So...still wondering why the V for a U is still legitimate. An "F" sort of looks like an "I," so can I substitute those too? Just wondering when and why this substitution became acceptable.
EDIT: Just saw the post about this. But I'm wondering how that works, since "U" is a vowel, and "V" is a consonant, and both make different sounds and serve different purposes. I'm not questinging the validity, it just seems like something odd to do.
EDIT: Just saw the post about this. But I'm wondering how that works, since "U" is a vowel, and "V" is a consonant, and both make different sounds and serve different purposes. I'm not questinging the validity, it just seems like something odd to do.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
mioque -- no system of assigning numeric values to a letter was ever used - where "combinations of letters" were intended to show a single number represented in alpha form as you "pretend" to believe.
You "pretend" to believe -
VI - 6
c
a
r
IVs - 4
F
I - 1
L
I - 1
I - 1
Where you "mix" single letter "assignment" (I for 1) with compound numeric spatial positioning (I NOT being ONE if used before a letter V and V not being 5 if used after the LETTER I) is just silly.
You are mixing and matching "as it suits you" rather than using one consistent method.
The text never said the name IS a number - RATHER it says "the Number of the Name" is to be "calculated".
You are simply "reaching" in an effort to avoid "the obvious".
No such numerical assignement existed for names "as you pretend to believe". Hence you show no case for it. Merely speculating such a method - is not "compelling".
The "objective" method that has historic 'integrity' would be to assign EACH LETTER its own numeric value - and add them as individual values.
The strident efforts of the RCC in recent years to distance itself from ITS (OWN documented title which the CATHOLIC document "Donation of Constantine" publically proclaimed over a 1000 years ago )- as well as efforts here to "pretend" the Adventists invented this title in the 19th century (another modern day example of RC proclivity toward historic revisionism) is testimony by the RCC itself showing THAT IT believes the title to add up to the value indicated.
Enjoy.
In Christ,
Bob
You "pretend" to believe -
VI - 6
c
a
r
IVs - 4
F
I - 1
L
I - 1
I - 1
Where you "mix" single letter "assignment" (I for 1) with compound numeric spatial positioning (I NOT being ONE if used before a letter V and V not being 5 if used after the LETTER I) is just silly.
You are mixing and matching "as it suits you" rather than using one consistent method.
The text never said the name IS a number - RATHER it says "the Number of the Name" is to be "calculated".
You are simply "reaching" in an effort to avoid "the obvious".
No such numerical assignement existed for names "as you pretend to believe". Hence you show no case for it. Merely speculating such a method - is not "compelling".
The "objective" method that has historic 'integrity' would be to assign EACH LETTER its own numeric value - and add them as individual values.
The strident efforts of the RCC in recent years to distance itself from ITS (OWN documented title which the CATHOLIC document "Donation of Constantine" publically proclaimed over a 1000 years ago )- as well as efforts here to "pretend" the Adventists invented this title in the 19th century (another modern day example of RC proclivity toward historic revisionism) is testimony by the RCC itself showing THAT IT believes the title to add up to the value indicated.
Enjoy.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Hold the Phone! Stop the presses!
Trying2Understand has finally made an argument that will hold up to objective review.
I applaud the fact that in all this clammor - someone on the RC side is finally stumbling across at least "one" valid point that will hold up.
The Title that the Catholic Document "The Donation of Constantine" (Endorsed by no less than TEN Popes over 3 centuries) - uses for Peter is NOT the ONLY name "whose number" could be calculated as 666 in all of history.
However Adventists never made such a claim - and neither do I.
In your efforts to "revise history" you mix "fact and fiction" so freely - that it is very difficult for you to tell what the other side is claiming.
However - honesty and integrity demand that "eventually" you come to the point of allowing yourself to "understand" the opposing view.
If for no other reason - to better defend your position.
I would have "thought" this would have occured to you before - and who knows if this will "take" even now. But there is always hope.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The "favor" in this case - would consist of some remedial latin dialogue that you might have with some of our "enthusiastic" albeit "less informed" RC bretheren that are either "pretending" not to be aware of that fact - or genuinely don't know about it.
There is also the Roman practice of carving these names in stone and having to use V's for U's in those cases due to expediency.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Obfuscation "again".
The historic fact observed is that the "Donation of Constantine" is a "CATHOLIC" document - of CATHOLIC origin and NOT a document of the Roman Emperor Constantine. The article quoted does NOTHING to lessen that "problem" for Roman Catholicism.
(This note for GraceSaves).
The other "historic fact observed" is that the document is IN Catholic Cannon Law, is endorsed by no LESS than TEN Popes AND IS used to promote the precident for assigning secular powers and lands to the Catholic Church. (Hence the reliance on the documents by the Papacy).
The article "clung to" by the RC defense so far - does nothing to obliterate or revise those historic facts.
In Christ,
Bob
The clim
Bob you do realize that I'm simply provoking you? I'm going to make this thread survive to september 27 remember.
In real numerological systems each letter has a number. With the exception of certain languages originally written without vowels (like Hebrew). Roman numerals aren't numerology, so yes IV is always 4. There was no doubt a real system of Latin numerology in use in the first century A.D. (in fact several were used), but in those systems each letter had a number.
In real numerological systems each letter has a number. With the exception of certain languages originally written without vowels (like Hebrew). Roman numerals aren't numerology, so yes IV is always 4. There was no doubt a real system of Latin numerology in use in the first century A.D. (in fact several were used), but in those systems each letter had a number.
"The Title that the Catholic Document "The Donation of Constantine" (Endorsed by no less than TEN Popes over 3 centuries)"
Does that mean that those 10 specific popes were the anti-christ?
"that the document is <You mean was.>IN Catholic CANNON LAW, is <You mean was.> endorsed by no LESS than TEN POPES and is <You mean was.>used to promote the PRECIDENT for ASSIGNING SECULAR POWERS and lands to the Catholic Church."
-canon law,
-10 popes
-precedent
During the good old days, popes usually acted like medieval kings instead of religious leaders, what you have is evidence of unfit religious leaders, using a conveniant document they found lying around.
At best you have proof that the medieval and Renaissance papacy was an anything but Christian institution.
Full agreement here. (I'm a fundie baptist remember?)
Does that mean that those 10 specific popes were the anti-christ?
"that the document is <You mean was.>IN Catholic CANNON LAW, is <You mean was.> endorsed by no LESS than TEN POPES and is <You mean was.>used to promote the PRECIDENT for ASSIGNING SECULAR POWERS and lands to the Catholic Church."
-canon law,
-10 popes
-precedent
During the good old days, popes usually acted like medieval kings instead of religious leaders, what you have is evidence of unfit religious leaders, using a conveniant document they found lying around.
At best you have proof that the medieval and Renaissance papacy was an anything but Christian institution.
Full agreement here. (I'm a fundie baptist remember?)
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
And thus my point EACH LETTER had a number and that was considered when "calculating the number of a name" - the spatial positioning of numbers (as in the case of a normal Roman numeral) was NOT used when calculating "the number of a name".
You merely posit such an inconsistency as a red herring - and I am just "pointing that out".
I don't believe you could be serious - or that anyone else that had historic examples of "calculating the number of a name" would take it seriously either.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
"The Title that the Catholic Document "The Donation of Constantine" (Endorsed by no less than TEN Popes over 3 centuries)"
It means that ONE of the indicators found in Revelation 13 can be applied - but ALL indicators have to apply as found in Rev 12 and 13 for the chapter's "first beast" imagry to be applied.
SHOW that the CONTENTS were tailored TO the Church - tailored to the PREFERENCE that the Church had regarding the Papacy.
NOTICE-that IN the Document the statement is NOT made "I the Emperor hereby give to the Pope the title Vicar of the Son of God".
The Catholic framers of the document did NOT consider that it was "Accepted" among Catholics that the Roman Emperor GAVE that title to the Popes.
RATHER the Catholic framers of the document stated that ALL already accepted that PETER held that title AND that ALL already accepted that the SUCCESSORS of Peter - lay claim to all the same privileges as Peter. The framers argue DIRECTLY FROM that privilege - that as IT places Peter worthy of sovereignty and authority regarding secular matters and properties SO that SAME privilege and authority should be EXTENDED to his successors.
When you seek to "nuke" the core of their argument - you destroy what BECAME a lasting tenant of Catholicism regarding the secular powers of the Papacy.
In Christ,
Bob
No. It means that the contents/the arguments of that Catholic document have the endorsement of the papacy ITSELF and NOT merely of some misguided monks throughout history.
It means that ONE of the indicators found in Revelation 13 can be applied - but ALL indicators have to apply as found in Rev 12 and 13 for the chapter's "first beast" imagry to be applied.
Wrong. "At best" I found that the catholic framers of the document AND the Ten Popes that publically appealed to the document AND the subsequent attempts of the RCC to APPEAL TO the CONTENT EVEN IF the initial authors were merely Catholic AND NOT the Roman emperor - AND the fact that the document was "not question until the 15th century" as the RC historians note...
SHOW that the CONTENTS were tailored TO the Church - tailored to the PREFERENCE that the Church had regarding the Papacy.
NOTICE-that IN the Document the statement is NOT made "I the Emperor hereby give to the Pope the title Vicar of the Son of God".
The Catholic framers of the document did NOT consider that it was "Accepted" among Catholics that the Roman Emperor GAVE that title to the Popes.
RATHER the Catholic framers of the document stated that ALL already accepted that PETER held that title AND that ALL already accepted that the SUCCESSORS of Peter - lay claim to all the same privileges as Peter. The framers argue DIRECTLY FROM that privilege - that as IT places Peter worthy of sovereignty and authority regarding secular matters and properties SO that SAME privilege and authority should be EXTENDED to his successors.
When you seek to "nuke" the core of their argument - you destroy what BECAME a lasting tenant of Catholicism regarding the secular powers of the Papacy.
In Christ,
Bob