vicarivs filii dei

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
here is your answer for the third time... don't ask me again

Rev.13
[18] Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Rage,

Sorry to have to ask again, but just how does this verse tell you how to assign Roman Numerals to the letters of a name and then how to arrive at 666?

Why Roman Numerals?

Why addition and not some combination of math operations?

Does the name have to have three words?

Please explain how the verse tells you to do this.

Please don't just simply repeat the verse.

Ron

 

[Rakka Rage]

you read the verse... is it not obvious that it is not explicit? it says what to do not how to do it. that does not support roman numerals... but it does not prohibit them. can you not read?

anyway... here is some support for the calculation method i presented...

It has been argued that the title of the popes should be reckoned according
to the Greek gematria, since John wrote in Greek, but since the title appears
in Latin, and Latin is the official language of the Church of Rome and the
language of its adopted Bible, the Vulgate, such a procedure would destroy the
numerical value of that title in its own language. It would seem reasonable
that a Latin title should exhibit its Latin numerical values rather than Greek
values.


"Representing numbers by letters of the alphabet gave rise to a practice
among the ancients of representing names also by numbers. Examples of this kind
abound in the writings of heathens, Jews, and Christians." [44]

"It was a method practiced among the ancients, to denote names by numbers:
as the name of Thouth or the Egyptian Mercury was signified by the number 1218.
. . . It hath been the usual method in all God's dispensations, for the Holy
Spirit to accommodate His expressions to the customs, fashions, and manners of
the several ages. since then this art and mystery of numbers was so much used
among the ancients, it is less wonderful that the beast also should have his
number, and his number is 666." [45]

 

[Rakka Rage]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
You checked the Latin translation yourself, right? Thought so.

God bless,

Grant

are you disputing that the titles mentioned apply to the pope?

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
you read the verse... is it not obvious that it is not explicit? it says what to do not how to do it. that does not support roman numerals... but it does not prohibit them. can you not read?

Then by your admission, you could be completely wrong in how you are arriving at 666 from any given name.

You have no Scriptural basis for how you are doing any of this.

Why wouldn't the letter A = I , B = II , and so on?

Forgive me for saying this, to me your whole arguement simply looks silly.

You have no Scriptural basis for your accusations.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GraceSaves:
You checked the Latin translation yourself, right? Thought so.

God bless,

Grant

are you disputing that the titles mentioned apply to the pope? </font>[/QUOTE]\

1) I am saying that you have not translated these yourself; you have taken them from a "rough English translation."

2) If they are correct, I am not disputing that they refer to the Pope.

3) The term "God on earth" is taken out of the context: "as if God on earth." Thus, it is not a title, but a comparison, one which is overzealous, as has already been stated ("laxism").

4) This is one man's writings, and not those of the Church.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Rakka Rage]

Then by your admission, you could be completely wrong in how you are arriving at 666 from any given name.

of course... when did i claim infallibility?

You have no Scriptural basis for how you are doing any of this.

yes i do... i have given the scriptural basis many, many times... you just ignore(ant)|( it)

Why wouldn't the letter A = I , B = II , and so on?

it could... but we would not be discussing it.

why dont you try it out in your spare time and post the results to a different thread

Forgive me for saying this, to me your whole arguement simply looks silly.

you really do not understand my argument, apparently...

 

[BobRyan]

Rakka said --
anyway... here is some support for the calculation method i presented...

What is the source that you quote?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

A few things on the quotes posted by Keith that Bob heralds so much...

The first three merely requote the Donation of Constantine.

A "real" Historic document - "really" authored BY the Catholic church, FOR the Catholic Church using arguments THAT the citizens and Catholics would readily "accept". A docouments WHOSE CONTENTS were argued FOR by the no fewer than 10 Popes - to make their case.

They "relied" on the truths IN the document to make their point. IF they considered themselves "NOT to be accepted as the Vicar of the Son of God on earth" or if they considered that "invalid" they would simply "NOTE IT" in their arguments made FROM the contents of the document.

As it is - it stands as one of the most ancient and AFFIRMED documents in all of Catholicism in terms of the CONTENTS being argued FOR - IN COURT - by no fewer than 10 Popes.

It was NOT simply the "origin" but the "CONTENTS" that were argued.

There is no way to escape the obvious fact that the CONTENTS were fully acceptable TO and BY the RCC - IT EVEN AUTHORED them.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Grant said --
I ask you to please make sense. The Donation of Constantine was used as a real document. Yes, that is so. But when you write "the RCC ITSELF is promoting this title as one that EVERYONE accepts," you are totally fabricating what is not there.

First, it is not nor has been for a LONG time been "promoted."

This document was in fact promoted for 3 centuries and finds explicit endorsement from no less than 10 Popes. IF the RCC AUTHORING the document and then 10 of her Popes AFFIRMING it - to the point of GAINING legal civil powers as a direct result of it - is NOT the RCC showing WHAT IT thinks to be the rightful position of ITS OWN Pope and Civil power - then nothing does.

Grant --
It is a well known fabrication, and thus is of course, no longer used.

Obviously - once the perfidity of the document's origin is discovered - it can no longer be argued as a legal document establishing Papal order in civil matters. BUT that does NOT remove it from showing the HISTORY of what the RCC believed to be ACCEPTABLE Civil powers for the Pope and WHY they felt those civil powers were rightly assigned to the Pope. The Historical "EVIDENCE" CEASES to be the EVIDENCE of what CONSTANTINE was thinking once we find it to be a creation OF the Catholic church. Rather it becomes devastating evidence about what the RCC was thinking - it is evidence of what its AUTHORS and its PROMOTERS were thinking.

In fact IF it had been found to be truly AUTHORED by Constantine - the RCC would have a level of "deniability" claiming that Constantine "just did not understand the accurate title for Peter" since Constantine makes no claim to being a theologian. Instead NO Pope makes that claim about Constantine when arguing FROM the document AND no wonder since the RCC itself AUTHORED the text.

That remains - as with all documents of that type.

In other words it becomes a "MORE ACCURATE" document about Catholic THINKING than of Emperor Constantine's thinking - ONCE we discover it was AUTHORED by Catholics FOR Catholics and endorsed BY no less than 10 Pontiffs! It only INCREASES in value as an indicator of Catholic thought!

Second, the purpose of the document was not to promote a title, nor does the document "promote the title" - this is an outright lie on your part. It occurs ONCE in the article, and it references ONLY PETER, not his successors.

When we "follow the details" of what I said and what the document said - we find that it ARGUES FROM the Authority of Peter - stating that ALL SUCCESSORS to Peter inherit Peter's Authority.

By FIRST establishing Peter's Authority as "Vicar of the Son of God on Earth" it then merely "has to show" that the SUCCESSORS inherit that SAME authority. The argument is that THIS authority inherited FROM Peter - is sufficient to justify holding civil powers.

This WAS IN FACT Promoted - this is in fact the argument IN the document. IF you REMOVED that STARTING level of Authority from Peter - THEN showing that someone was a SUCCESSOR to "no authority" would have proved nothing. The Catholic Authors did not make that mistake - are you?

Read the document - the clear fact that they argue FROM Peter's Authority and FIRST establish what that authority was by using (among other things) his TITLE as "VICAR of the Son of God" is explicit in the document.

There is just no way to obfuscate it away.

In Christ,

bob

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
yes i do... i have given the scriptural basis many, many times... you just ignore(ant)|( it)

Rage, youdon't seem to get it.

That verse you keep posting does not tell you how to get to 666 from a name.

Anyone could make up any system to get any name to finally equal 666.

R=10 A=200 K=20 G=5 E=1

RAKKA RAGE

10+200+20+20+200+10+200+5+1 = 666

This whole thread is pointless and silly.

[ June 13, 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Rakka Rage]

It has been argued that the title of the popes should be reckoned according
to the Greek gematria, since John wrote in Greek, but since the title appears
in Latin, and Latin is the official language of the Church of Rome and the
language of its adopted Bible, the Vulgate, such a procedure would destroy the
numerical value of that title in its own language. It would seem reasonable
that a Latin title should exhibit its Latin numerical values rather than Greek
values.

[43] Matthew Henry, Commentary, Vol. III, p. 1065, note on Revelation 13:18


"Representing numbers by letters of the alphabet gave rise to a practice
among the ancients of representing names also by numbers. Examples of this kind
abound in the writings of heathens, Jews, and Christians."

[44] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. II, p. 1025, note on
Revelation 13: 18.

"It was a method practiced among the ancients, to denote names by numbers:
as the name of Thouth or the Egyptian Mercury was signified by the number 1218.
. . . It hath been the usual method in all God's dispensations, for the Holy
Spirit to accommodate His expressions to the customs, fashions, and manners of
the several ages. since then this art and mystery of numbers was so much used
among the ancients, it is less wonderful that the beast also should have his
number, and his number is 666."

[45] Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, Vol. II, p. 298, 299.

 

[Rakka Rage]

"So in like manner they say now, "See this Catholic Church, this Church of
God, feeble and weak, rejected even by the very nations called Catholics. There
is Catholic France, and Catholic Germany, and Catholic Italy, giving up this
exploded figment of the temporal power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ,' And so,
because the Church seems weak, and the Vicar of the Son of God is renewing the
Passion of his Master upon earth, therefore we are scandalized, therefore we
turn our faces from him." [46] (Italic ours.)

[46] Cardinal Manning, The Temporal Power of the Year of the Vicar of Jesus
Christ, pp. 140, 141.

 

[Rakka Rage]

That verse you keep posting does not tell you how to get to 666 from a name.

i never said it did... you are assuming

This whole thread is pointless and silly.

participation is NOT manditory

[editing explanation below]

[ June 13, 2003, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
i never said it did... you are ASSuming

Careful, someone may take offense.

Since you don't have any Scriptural basis for arriving at 666, what is the point in this exercise?

As I have shown you, Rakka Rage = 666

And you have used that name many many times here.

 

[Rakka Rage]

Since you don't have any Scriptural basis for arriving at 666, what is the point in this exercise?

that is a lie... i have told you my scriptural basis many times but you are willfully ignorant

As I have shown you, Rakka Rage = 666

your imaginary number system is very impressive.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
that is a lie... i have told you my scriptural basis many times but you are willfully ignorant

Around and around you go.

Please show me the Scriptural basis for assigning Roman Numerals to letters as you show and then performing the math operations as you show.

You have no Scriptural support for the specific procedures which you have used.

your imaginary number system is very impressive.

Why is my system any more imaginary than yours?

 

[thessalonian]

"that is a lie... "

I think the lies on this thread are rather obvious. (that is to those with "eyes that see")

 

[Rakka Rage]

Why is my system any more imaginary than yours?

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.roman.html

 

[Rakka Rage]

You have no Scriptural support for the specific procedures which you have used.

"you read the verse... is it not obvious that it is not explicit? it says what to do not how to do it. that does not support roman numerals... but it does not prohibit them. can you not read?"

it is a lie that i "HAVE NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS"...

why do you keep asking the same question over and over? are you just trying to cause trouble? do you just not understand simple english?

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You have no Scriptural support for the specific procedures which you have used.

"you read the verse... is it not obvious that it is not explicit? it says what to do not how to do it. that does not support roman numerals... but it does not prohibit them. can you not read?"

it is a lie that i "HAVE NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS"...

why do you keep asking the same question over and over? are you just trying to cause trouble? do you just not understand simple english? </font>[/QUOTE]Rak,

Aren't ya supposed to interprut scripture with scripture in sola scriptura or is it you that has the infallible definition of what SS really is. I think John 6:66 is a much better way of applying SS (even though I don't believe in it) than your cockamaime calculation.

God bless you Rak. I know your trying hard to defend what you believe, but I think you better throw in the towel on this one. Raw egg on the face is kind a grose.