vicarivs filii dei

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why is my system any more imaginary than yours?

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.roman.html </font>[/QUOTE]I know Roman Numerals. Studied them in about third grade.

The imaginary part of your system is:

Using Roman Numerals
Assigning them to letters
Performing the math operations

Why is your use of Roman Numerals more valid than the numbers I use?

Why is your assignment of numbers to letters any more valid than my assignment of numbers?

Well, you get the idea.

 

[trying2understand]

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

Rage responded,
"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?"

So where Scripture is silent is support for your position?

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?

I keep asking because you do not answer the question as I pose it.

What is the Scriptural support for the specific procedures which you have used?

Read each word of the question and then answer it.

Don't just rush ahead and post the same verse.

Explain how Scripture supports the specific procedures which you have used.


Actually, I probably give you too much credit.

You copied your 666 thing from somewhere without attribution, did you not?

You did not come up with this yourself, did you?

 

[Rakka Rage]

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.

what does this discussion have to do with SS?

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.

good for you

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.

how old are you?

 

[Rakka Rage]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I said,
You have no Scriptural support for the specific procedures which you have used.

Rage responded,
"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?"

So where Scripture is silent is support for your position?

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?

I keep asking because you do not answer the question as I pose it.

What is the Scriptural support for the specific procedures which you have used?

Read each word of the question and then answer it.

Don't just rush ahead and post the same verse.

Explain how Scripture supports the specific procedures which you have used.


Actually, I probably give you too much credit.

You copied your 666 thing from somewhere without attribution, did you not?

You did not come up with this yourself, did you? </font>[/QUOTE]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?

 

[GraceSaves]

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

Apparently moderators don't even care anymore.

 

[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?

I have asked you repeatedly for Scriptural support for the specific procedures that you have used in getting to 666.

You have only responded with the same verse over and over.

You are right. It is obvious that the verse is not explicit.

That is why I keep asking you for Scriptural support for what you are doing in getting to 666.

An honest answer would be:

"I have no Scriptural support for the way that I am getting 666."

"I have no Scriptural support for using Roman Numerals."

"I have no Scriptural support for the way that I am assigning numbers to the letter."

"I have no Scriptural support for the math operations that I am using on the numbers that
Ii have assinged to the letters."

An honest direct answer to a direct question. That's all I want.

 

[Rakka Rage]

"I have no Scriptural support for the way that I am getting 666."

that would be a lie...

"I have no Scriptural support for using Roman Numerals."

you are correct... it is not explicit. i have said this already

"I have no Scriptural support for the way that I am assigning numbers to the letter."

you are correct... it is not explicit. i have said this already

"I have no Scriptural support for the math operations that I am using on the numbers that
Ii have assinged to the letters."

you are correct... it is not explicit. i have said this already

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
"I have no Scriptural support for the way that I am getting 666."

that would be a lie...

"I have no Scriptural support for using Roman Numerals."

you are correct... it is not explicit. i have said this already

"I have no Scriptural support for the way that I am assigning numbers to the letter."

you are correct... it is not explicit. i have said this already

"I have no Scriptural support for the math operations that I am using on the numbers that
Ii have assinged to the letters."

you are correct... it is not explicit. i have said this already

And around and around we go.

Ok. Spell it out for me exactly how it is that you have Scriptural support for the way that you are getting to 666 when you admit that you have no Scriptural support for using Roman Numerals, no Scriptural support for the way that you are assigning numbers to the letters, and no Scriptural support for the math operations that you are using.

What is your Scriptural support for the way that yo are getting to 666?

 

[thessalonian]

"you are correct... it is not explicit. i have said this already"

Ok, show us FROM THE BIBLE how it is implicit. Not some handwaving fairy tail by some biggot.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
"I have no Scriptural support for the way that I am getting 666."

that would be a lie...

"I have no Scriptural support for using Roman Numerals."

you are correct... it is not explicit. i have said this already

"I have no Scriptural support for the way that I am assigning numbers to the letter."

you are correct... it is not explicit. i have said this already

"I have no Scriptural support for the math operations that I am using on the numbers that
Ii have assinged to the letters."

you are correct... it is not explicit. i have said this already

And around and around we go.

Ok. Spell it out for me exactly how it is that you have Scriptural support for the way that you are getting to 666 when you admit that you have no Scriptural support for using Roman Numerals, no Scriptural support for the way that you are assigning numbers to the letters, and no Scriptural support for the math operations that you are using.

What is your Scriptural support for the way that you are getting to 666?

 

[Rakka Rage]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
"you are correct... it is not explicit. i have said this already"

Ok, show us FROM THE BIBLE how it is implicit. Not some handwaving fairy tail by some biggot.

why are you ordering me around?

why would i do that? i never claimed anything was implicit? do you guys know what a strawman is? you are really just putting words into my mouth and then attacking them...

why are you calling me a biggot?

what does "handwaving" mean?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
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.

</font>[/QUOTE]Excellent post Rakka!

Rev 13:18 says to "CALCULATE the number"

And also tells us that the number is the number of his name or title.

Your post comes directly to the point showing us "why Latin" and "Why the numbers" that are ASSIGNED in using Roman numerals for LATIN titles.

Note: -- I paid attention to the "details".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Kamoroso]

Hello Grant.

Adam and Eve were human, but they were not humans that had fallen in sin. They were not under the law, until they had broken it. Since they fell, all of humanity has a fallen nature, and are born under the law. This is why all must be born again, if they will be saved. When one accepts Jesus as their Savior, they are no longer under the law, but under grace.

Rom 3:19 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

All the world has become guilty before God. We are born with a sinful nature, and are under the law, needing the grace of God to free us from the condemnation of the law. David describes our condition at birth.

Ps 51:5 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is the condition that all of humanity are in. This is the condition that Jesus Christ came to save us from.


Gal 4:4-5 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Christ was made under the law, that he might save those who are under the law. If he was not one of us, then he could not save us. If Mary, his mother was not one of us, and we know that his Father was not one of us, then Christ himself was not one of us. Then he did not come in the flesh, that is, our flesh. If this is true, then there is no hope for us. However, this is not true. It is the spirit of the antichrist that makes this claim, not the word of God.

It was Jesus who lived a life without sin in our flesh, not Mary. To say that she did, is to say that Christ was, and is, altogether separate from humanity. That he did not come in the flesh. This is verily the spirit of the antichrist.


Gal 5:16-18 16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

If by faith we accept our death with Christ on the cross, then the old man is crucified. By faith in Christ, the flesh can be crucified in him, that the Spirit of God might be manifest in us. This is salvation. Being in Christ is justification, because the just demands of the law are met. That is to say, the law demands death, and by faith we have died with Christ on the cross. Christ in you, the hope of glory is sanctification. That is to say, that Christ may live in the believer through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Walking after the Spirit, we do not fulfill the desires of the flesh. This is the purpose of our salvation. We are to be restored to that condition which Adam and Eve were in before the fall. Being the sons and daughters of God.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

[BobRyan]

quote: Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Actually I think that is the point -the number of his name - that does not change when Pope after Pope takes the throne.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grant said --
You are begging the question; the belief that the antiChrist will be a succession of people filling an office is not Scriptural, so that cannot be pre-assumed to be true.

Details - pay attention to the details.

We are talking about a "Beast Power" in Rev 13. That power Just like the Woman of Rev 12 and Rome in Rev 12 - goes on for many generations.

The word "AntiChrist" is not listed in Rev 13.

However - if you go to 1John - you see that "MANY AntiChrists" are predicted.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
These are no less than TEN Popes reading that title and AFFIRMING it as they AFFIRM the contents of the document and promote it - as the RCC itself created that document WITH that title for that very reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grant --
Bob, you are still arguing under the pretense that an unofficial document becomes official simply because someone uses it in an official capacity. If I have a fake social security number, and I pass myself off as someone else, do I officially become that person, or officially now possess his social security number as my own? No, it is a forgery, and I will never truely be able to call myself the identity of this other person.

Details - you have to pay attention to the Details.

In the case of The Donation of Constantine - it is not like "3 dollar bill" once proven to be bogus you can not use it any more.

INSTEAD of "currency" or even a "social Security number" it is a written discussion - argument - that SHOWS the thinking of those doing the writing AS WELL AS the thinking of those that AGREE with the writing.

This is to put it bluntly - "devastating" to the RC case when it comes to seeing WHAT they were "Agreeing to".

This was NOT a document "INTRODUCING a Title" and tryhing to get people to "Agree to it". But had it been doing that - EVEN at that - it would have had civil courts, 10 Popes and the entire RCC of those centuries - AGREEING.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
The document takes the fact of this title as unniversal and fully accepted without dispute "As the Blessed Peter is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of God on the earth"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More later ..

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
It does not say " a few have claimed that Peter should be titled Vicar of the Son of God on Earth and possibly that is true for Some to think of him that way".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grant said --
That doesn't even matter when the document is false! AT BEST, your argument could be that these "10 POPES" who supported the document are the antiChrist.

Wrong. The details show that the document is NOT making an argument for INTRODUCING a title - it is carefully crafted by the Catholic church itself appealing to what is ALREADY accepted about the Authority of Peter and TRYING to argue that what is ALREADY accepted for Peter SHOULD BE EXTENDED to all of the successors of Peter.

The is entirely DIFFERENT than your revisionism of this document (that is not about to change in content) trying to get it to introduce the titles that it claims are " A Given" that ALL already accept. The Catholic church worded it this way and crafted the language to MEET expectations of the Popes, people, and civil courts as they viewed the Papacy. ITs success is measured in centuries and 10 Popes all signing up to make the SAME ARGUMENT in their own appeals.

Grant --
But seeing as this title is not in use today, current popes must not be the antiChrist.

The adding up to 666 is only "one of many attribtues" that would have to match. This one alone is not sufficient to identify the Pope as the beast power in Rev 13.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Rather it makes this point the "foundation" of the point driven in the document --

"so the Pontiffs who are the representatives of that same chief of the apostles, should obtain from us and our empire the power of a supremacy"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grant --
Yes, Bob. This is based on the office, not the title. In fact, the document is speaking of an office, "vicar," and does not insinuate that it is a title, since in the document, "vicar" is not capitalized.

The Document USES the Title to MAKE the point that the Peter HAS the Authority and Power "on EARTH" as "The Vicar of the Son of God" - being the "Vicar of Mickey Mouse" would not carry the argument. IT has to show a higher authority.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
It is not a side note - but the primary basis of argument FOR "the Power of Supremacy" arguing that SINCE the title is fully valid "SO" all succeeding popes to that title SHOULD have the "power of supremacy".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grant said --
Bob, if they had said "the Vicar of Christ," the exact same thing would be true.

NOW we are getting somewhere. You are right - the document could have been crafted by the RCC to say "Vicarius Christi" JUST as easily. But the document is not "INTRODUCING" the title - it is merely appealing to existing ACCEPTANCE. The point of the document is to "Be accepted" and then be used in civil courts to argue the case for the Papacy holding civil titles.

If they just "make up titles" that nobody accepted - they would first have to "make the case for the title" which they do not do in the document. RATHER they appeal to what is ALREADY accepted Catholic doctrine/practice. Hence "Vicarius Filii Dei".

Thus the title IS VERY IMPORTANT - as it reflects the thinking of the authors AND its acceptance by the entire Catholic church ALONG WITH the Popes - reflects the thinking of the entire church.

NOTE: They do not come along 3 centuries later and say "HEY WAIT A MINUTE! He is NOT the Vicar of the Son of God!! Who put that in there!"

The title is never questioned by the church in regard to that document -- ever.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
There is no possibility of practicing revisionist history with the contents of the document - it is right there in black and white.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grant --
Yes, with a big "forgery" stamp on it. Which you continue to ignore,

Again - you are not following the details.

The forgery only STOPS the document from being used as a legal document in court (AND should cause us to go back and REVOKE any civil authority given to the RCC during those centuries and is STILL in place due to arguments won on the basis of that document).

However it REMAINS most devasting as a historic document that reveals the thinking of its authors (the Catholic church) and of the Peoples, Popes and civil authorities who endorsed its contents - its assertions - it arguments - its view of the Papacy.

Grant said --
Kinda like supporting a quote that, by its very author, has retratcted as an error, to which your church has been asked to no longer use as truth, but to which you just advocated as truthful evidence?

Wrong again.

Iit is like finding "The Constitution" that everyone signed up for - base laws on - was not "made up" in the 1700's by Americans but was "made up" by the Spanish. Though the REAL "authors" are now revealed - the more SIGNIFICANT fact of the document is ALL the laws and people that AGREE WITH THE CONTENT as SHOWN in their LEGAL arguments and LAWS passed based on the REASONING of the document.

Else you would find the RCC revoking ITS OWN established position to hold both religious and civil office.

Follow the details.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Donation of Constantine:


RE: Catholic authorship choosing to use the Title “Vicarius Filii Dei”


The first question is – did the RCC really promote the contents of its own document that it authored? (and then was used by no less than 10 Popes in their respective legal arguments for having civil powers granted to the RCC.)

Grant asserts --
The Donation of Constantine was used as a real document. Yes, that is so. … But it is not now nor has it been for a long time "promoted."

This document was in fact promoted for over 3 centuries and finds explicit endorsement from no less than 10 popes. However you make a good point that in recent centuries (possibly since the early 20th century?), the RCC seeks to distance itself from “Vicarius Filii Dei” and select “Vicarius Christi” instead. (As if it viewed these as vastly different claims).

However this is merely a recent development for the 1500 year old organization. Which makes it impossible to shake off the deeds and practices of long-standing history by relatively recent attempts at revisionism.

If the RCC authoring the document and then 10 of her popes affirming it – appealing to its contents – arguing its key salient points –( with the successful result of gaining legal civil powers as a direct result of it )- is not the RCC revealing what it thinks to be the rightful source of its own religious and civil power - then nothing does.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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

Obviously - once the perfidy of the document's authors is discovered - it can no longer be used as a Legal basis for establishing papal order in civil matters.

(In fact you could legitimately argue that any civil power granted the RCC during those centuries should be “revoked” until another basis can be found for them.)

But the fact that it was “really” authored BY the RCC and authored FOR the RCC (and authored with wording perfectly “calculated” to be fully accepted BY Catholics), only increases its value as a “reflector of Catholic ideas, teaching, doctrine and thought” that was fully endorsed by Popes, Peoples, and civil authorities.

As a primary and essential document in its grandiose claims of the RCC for civil powers, the document only INCREASES in value in terms of being a document that truly reflects the accepted, promoted and favored views of Catholic Popes and peoples during that period of time.

The historical "evidence" ceases to be the evidence of what Constantine was thinking once we find the document to be a creation of the Catholic Church. Instead it Becomes devastating evidence about what the RCC itself was thinking and would readily accept. It is first hand evidence about what it was arguing for ITSELF in court - it is evidence of what its Own authors and promoters, it readers and its adherents were thinking AND fully accepting about the Papacy. The fact that its arguments prevailed and a succession of no less than 10 Popes appealed to its very content – only increases its value in that regard. In other words it becomes a "more accurate" document about Catholic thinking rather than of emperor Constantine's thinking (as was initially claimed).
Quote: From an RC member questioning if the document Creates and promotes the Title as its purpose


Second, the purpose of the document was not to (CREATE and promote) a title -
Indeed – the document “relies on pre-existing acceptance” of the title rather than seeking to “create” a title and argue that it should be accepted. Instead of “proposing” that Constantine and his fellow Catholics consider using “Vicarius Filii Dei” it argues that they already DID. In fact it argues that SINCE they already accept this title for Peter they should accept it equally for all of his successors.

When we "follow the details" of what is said in the document - we find that it argues from the authority of Peter - stating that all successors to Peter inherit Peter's authority. (It is difficult to imagine an RC member not agreeing with the document on that point)

By first establishing Peter's authority as "Vicar of the Son of God on earth" it then merely "has to appeal" to the everyday RC argument that Peter’s successors inherit that same authority. Specifically in this case the argument is made that Since Pere IS the Vicar of God the Son on earth then ALL who are his successor ALSO inherit that same authority and are due that same right to civil and religious power.

So in answer to the question above – “was Peter’s authority appealed to by first establishing his authority and then arguing for the successors to have that same authority” the answer must be “yes” without question. And DID the document use the title “Vicarius Filii Dei” as the starting “Authority” for Peter from which all successors derive their right to that title, authority, and power? Yes, without question.

If you edit the document and removed that starting level of authority from Peter – the entire argument collapses. Showing that someone was a successor to "no authority" would have proved nothing. The Catholic authors did not make that mistake - would you?

There is just no way to obfuscate it away. It is the smoking gun.

 

[thessalonian]

"why are you calling me a biggot?"


Now, who is putting words in who's mouth. You displayed a justification of it above from someone's website, thus I called you nothing of the sort. How can you get God's word's right when you can't understand my words?

Above you said you had posted biblical evidence. I believe you said "it is not explicit" Therefore it must be implicit or it is not biblical evidence. Simple as sasafras tea.

This is a handwave.

Though handwave has other meanings. I will leave it for you to figure out as you have done alot of it on this thread.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

My thanks to those who alerted me to the post on page 7 by Rakka Rage.

I edited his comment in the reported post and request that those who quoted him edit their post in suit.

Thank you all for your cooperation.

Clint Kritzer
Moderator

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed – the document "The Donation of Constantine" relies on pre-existing acceptance of the title "Vicarius Filii Dei" rather than seeking to “create” a title and argue that it should be accepted.

When carefully forging the document – its catholic authors did not seek to invent a “ 3 dollar bill” that no civil court, nor people, nor Pope could possibly be duped into thinking was “coin of the realm”. Rather they forged a set of 20’s that were readily accepted by all – for centuries, that were readily accepted as “legal tender” in court and were the basis for winning the argument on civil power to the Papacy. It is the very fact that they were carefully crafting that WHICH WAS acceptable – that they are so valuable today.


Instead of “proposing” that Constantine and his fellow Catholics consider using “Vicarius Filii Dei” it argues that they already DID. In fact it argues that SINCE they already accept this title for Peter they should accept it equally for all of his successors.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Isn't it "odd" that the RC position on this thread is "at times" some of the following?

#1. We don't care about "Calculating the number of his name" it seems silly to us and we pay no attention.

#2. We are shocked that anyone would accuse us of ever endorsing "Vicar of the Son of God" for the Popes since they are absolutly NOT that - they are the "Vicar of Christ".

Only really anti-Catholic people would accuse us of ever doing such a thing. No loving Catholic would.

#3. OOPS the editors of Our Sunday Visitor claimed it - but we got them to take it back.

Ooops - The RCC Authored this again in ITs OWN creations "the Donation of Constantine" - please pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

OOPs - the content of that document was relied upon by the RCC for centuries - and used by no less than 10 Popes to argue their case in court.

"How non-Catholic of all of them!"

#4. Anyone that notices the historic pattern here - and begins to put 2-and-2 together instead of "ignoring the skeleton in the closet" is not a friend of Catholics.

Just wondering if anyone else noticed.

In Christ,

Bob