Fodder for thought

[olger]

"plenipotentiary" Extra points for big word usage..

olger

[Clio]

Given the important rights established by the authorities granted him by then-President Reagan, it seemed important to separate a run of the mill ambassador from one with the kinds of sweeping power, negotiating authority, and decision making capability a plenipotentiary ambassador would have.

Doesn't seem to be call for sarcasm.

[Amelia]

Plenipotentiary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word plenipotentiary (from the Latin, plenus + potens, full + power) has two meanings.

As a noun, it refers to a person who has "full powers". In particular, the term commonly refers to a diplomat or ambassador who is fully authorised to represent their government as a prerogative.

[Amelia]

Interestingly prerogative is frequently misspelled as "perogative".

[Clio]

Precisely, Amelia.

Plenipotentiary means when he spoke, that ambassador may as well have been Ronnie himself. Very few ambassadors in this modern age of telephones, telegraph, and so on, are given such sweeping powers to newly recognize a sovereign state.

Which is what was done.

[Bravus]

Couple of weeks old: http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=793

[bevin]

Quote:

Very few ambassadors in this modern age of telephones, telegraph, and so on, are given such sweeping powers to newly recognize a sovereign state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador

Quote:

Ambassadors are ministers of the highest rank, with plenipotentiary authority to represent their head of state. In modern usage, most Ambassadors on foreign postings as head of mission carry the full title of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. "Ordinary" Ambassadors and non-plenipotentiary status are rarely used, although they may be encountered in certain circumstances.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

If I were to bring cites they would likely be of Catholic scholars stating that this title is not used. If the presumption is that Catholics lie about this issue, where does that leave us.

[Bravus]

Dave - can you clearly and simply specify what evidence would convince you that your position is wrong on this issue?

If no such evidence exists, or if such evidence is completely unattainable, then the discussion is pointless.

[bevin]

Using the "Our Sunday Visitor" as a proof of something is exactly the same as using the "Our Little Friend" magazine.

When asked, the Review staff don't even claim "The Review" states an official position of the SDA church - they say that they give their authors freedom to write what they like, even though the result at times is contrary to official SDA teachings.

Similarly using a dashed-off out-of-context uncertain-provenance

note from a misled Professor is akin to holding the SDA church to some private comment of some random SDA scholar.

David is free to hold such views - but it is a real tragedy that such poor scholarship was typical of evangelistic crusades in the 1960's - I have seen this, and the day=year "principle", presented without proof as "everybody-except-you-knows-this" truth at numerous SDA meetings.

It is a sad commentary of the standards of truth that SDA evangelists have.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

That statement appears to be supposition or speculation. Nor does it seem to take into account the recurrence of use of the title over a time period of 1,500 years.

You have simply failed to show such a repeated use of the title.

I noted in passing, looking at some of the cites you gave, that the phrase was not being used as a title, but as a description. Indeed there were times where the capitalisation made it clear is was NOT being used as a title. It is NOT a title when the capitalisation is "vicarius Filii Dei", when, in the same sentence, capitalisation is clearly being used "Vicarius Christii"

Any organisation using such arguments can expect others to use the statements to calibrate their measurement of the organisation's standards-of-proof, rather than the target's beastliness.

/Bevin

[bevin]

ps: We agree - Roman Catholic theology is obviously self-serving man-made nonsense.

[David Koot]

I can hear the same being said on a RC forum as well about SDA statements

The context here is the reliability of the evidence. In that sense, statements made under simiilar circumstances by SDA officials/scholars about SDA teachings would be presumptively biased.

[David Koot]

Dave - can you clearly and simply specify what evidence would convince you that your position is wrong on this issue?

If no such evidence exists, or if such evidence is completely unattainable, then the discussion is pointless.

Perhaps it would be good to clarify my position, first of all--which is:

1) The RCC teaches that the pope is a surrogate Christ ('alter Cristus'). That has been the teaching of the church for at least the last 1,500 years.

2) That teaching is reflected in descriptions of the pope's authority and status.

3) The teaching is also reflected in certain of the pope's titles, and how he is referred to, such as 'Alter Cristus,' 'Vicarius Cristus,' 'Vicarius Filii Dei.'

Before continuing, I should like to inquire as to whether or not that has been your understanding of my position?

Dave

[David Koot]

Using the "Our Sunday Visitor" as a proof of something is exactly the same as using the "Our Little Friend" magazine.

[David Koot]

You have simply failed to show such a repeated use of the title.

[David Koot]

Ach! I missed the 'edit' window! Oh well. I did have one more question for my esteemed colleague Bravus:

In regard to the position statement which I posted in response to your inquiry, (the three listed items) I should also like to know whether or not you would agree with those three items?

Dave

[Bravus]

Might want to check the John Paul II usage out for yourself - it's not quite as Bacchiochi makes it out, IMO.

I would agree that those three points are accurate as describing your position in part. I would also agree with all of them, *except* the assertion that Vicarius Filii Dei is one of those titles.

Our point of disagreement, and the crux of this thread, is when you (a) state that VFD is a title of the pope and ( use that title to compute the number 666.

I have already noted and stipulated that 'Vicarius Christi' is an official title of the pope and encapsulates certain doctrines about his role. The point at issue is VFD and 666. What evidence would it take to convince you that VFD is not a title of the pope, and that therefore the identification of the papacy is the antichrist is not biblical.

[Bravus]

I think you're probably right in that, CoAspen. I realised later that I should have said 'beast' on my post above though: despite popular culture, it's a further step from the number of the beast to the antichrist, and we're trying to be as clear as possible here.

[bevin]

Quote:

Quote:

Indeed there were times where the capitalisation made it clear is was NOT being used as a title. It is NOT a title when the capitalisation is "vicarius Filii Dei", when, in the same sentence, capitalisation is clearly being used "Vicarius Christii"

Please provide a cite in support of your statement.

My memory of Vicarius Christi being used in the same sentence was wrong, it was Beatus Petrus instead...

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/vallapart1.html

Quote:

In eo privilegio ita inter cetera legitur: "Utile iudicavimus una cum omnibus satrapis nostris, et universo senatu optimatibusque meis, etiam et cuncto populo Romanae gloriae imperio subiacenti, ut sicut B. Petrus in terris vicarius Filii Dei esse videtur constitutus, ita et Pontifices,

The Decretum of Gratian is actually quoting these words from the Donation, and retains the capitalisation

See 1/3rd way down the right hand column of

http://biblelight.net/1827r.gif

[David Koot]

Our point of disagreement, and the crux of this thread, is when you (a) state that VFD is a title of the pope and ( use that title to compute the number 666. I have already noted and stipulated that 'Vicarius Christi' is an official title of the pope and encapsulates certain doctrines about his role. The point at issue is VFD and 666. What evidence would it take to convince you that VFD is not a title of the pope, and that therefore the identification of the papacy is the antichrist is not biblical.

Several issues would seem to present themselves for review and clarification:

1) The 'first beast' of Rev. 13--As a prophetic 'beast,' it is a nation, kingdom, nation state, city state, etc., as opposed to an individual.

2) The 'blasphemous name' appears on the heads of this beast. The name is not specified. However, we understand Scripture to indicate that blasphemy is claiming prerogatives or status belonging to God alone.

3) The number 666 appears at the end of ch. 13, and is simply described as follows: "arithmos gar anthrwpou estin." There is NO--repeat NO article. Secondly, 'anthrwpou' could be either mankind or an individual, as opposed to 'androu' which would be an individual man. The phrase could be understood as either 'number of [the] man' or 'number of [a] man.' Which choice is correct? Ha! A judgment call! It could go either way. How would the meaning of the prophecy be affected by the call? If it is 'the' man, that is, a specific man, then one might look for a literal number connected with a specific man. If it is 'man' generally, then it could be a symbolic number. Much--MUCH hangs on that call!

4) The 'antichrist.' That appears in a different place in Scripture. The word as it is used there, according to lexical sources, has the meaning of 'supplanting' Christ or taking the place of Christ. The beast of Revelation 13 is not described as the Antichrist. The concept would need to be tied in by comparing Scripture.

5) 'Houston, we have a problem . . .' Specifically with this statement: "The identification of the papacy is the antichrist is not biblical." Here are the problems:

(a) The first beast is a nation state/city state/kingdom, etc. The PAPACY is ecclesiastical in nature--pertaining to the CHURCH, rather than a nation or state. The papacy is ASSOCIATED with a sovereign state, (Vatican City) but is not that state.

( The 'antichrist' is not mentioned in Rev. 13. At issue is the ID of the first beast.

© The identity of the first beast may quite readily be solved by reference to the clues contained in vv. 1 - 10 of ch. 13. It is NOT--repeat, NOT dependent upon the specific title, 'vicarius filii dei,' as an official title of the pope, who is an individual, NOR upon the assignation of the numerical value, 666, to that title.

Now, before I go any further, I would be interested in any response to the foregoing.

Dave

[Bravus]

Yes, as noted above, 'antichrist' was a red herring and I should have said, and meant to say, 'beast'.

I think it's not hugely controversial to identify the first beast.

Neither the singular or the plural ('a man' or 'mankind') works well with identifying the institution of the papacy as the second beast, the one from the earth, since it is neither an individual man (like Nero) or humanity as a whole. And not coming from the sea suggests it's not a nation or other state-like subset of humanity.

Clarification achieved, I hope. You still haven't answered my question, though.

[David Koot]

The interrelationship between the woman sitting on the beast in Rev. 17, named Babylon, clearly a church and the beast, clearly a nation or state, depicted both in ch. 17 and ch. 13, is rather interesting to sort out. From my study, I have concluded that the woman, Babylon, the mother of harlots, is the papacy, and that the beast is the political entity/city-state controlled by the papacy. Ch. 13 tends to focus on the political entity, but not to the exclusion of the church. IMO ch. 13, while depicting the political entity, also overlaps with the religio-political entity as a unit. Thus, the potential for confusion, and the help of ch. 17 which goes into more detail about the beast described in ch. 13.

It is rather late here, and I must confess to being a bit tired--starting to fade. I would like to continue this tomorrow. Meanwhile, any thoughts about the foregoing?

By the way, I agree, traditionally our evangelists may have over-simplified the issue and even engaged in some sensationalism in order to make things understandable.

Dave

[bevin]

My study resulted in me deciding there is only ONE woman in Revelation, and it is visible christianity, not just onedenomination.

She is chased into the wilderness - when next found she is corrupted - and when Christ comes she is redeemed.

There is not one vision in Rev where two women are simultaneously present.

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Quote:

3) The number 666 appears at the end of ch. 13, and is simply described as follows: "arithmos gar anthrwpou estin." There is NO--repeat NO article. Secondly, 'anthrwpou' could be either mankind or an individual, as opposed to 'androu' which would be an individual man. The phrase could be understood as either 'number of [the] man' or 'number of [a] man.' Which choice is correct? Ha! A judgment call! It could go either way. How would the meaning of the prophecy be affected by the call? If it is 'the' man, that is, a specific man, then one might look for a literal number connected with a specific man. If it is 'man' generally, then it could be a symbolic number. Much--MUCH hangs on that call!

You present a case [and well, I might add] that this instance must be decided with a "either/or" situation. Ie, it must be either the number of THE man or the number of A man.

Why not both? Why can not both situations be valid? Why can't these situations apply to different scenerios/philosophical viewpoint?

My inquiry/reasoning is thus-

My understanding of Revelation in general, is that there are different viewpoints/philosophical of scripture. There is the historical viewpoint, which the Catholics tend to favor. There is

futuristic interpretation [which is where we get the 'secret rapture' and which is pretty popular in todays Christian culture] .

Scripture is diliberately vague, in the prophectic sense. [Duh!] But it has, over the course of time, bounced seemingly back and forth between a couple of interpretations[aka viewpoints] of the future, both literal and relationship, and historical. Many times, as one senerio plays out, another interpretation/philosophical viewpoint kicks in...

Why does this subject need an either/or decision/viewpoint when both interpretations could be valid? Maybe the application of one viewpoint could be applied to a historical view point and the application of the other to a relationship view point? [see what I mean, here?]

I hope you'all have gotten the jist of what I am saying here. This is not my field of expertise. As such, I am more of a 'fish out of water' and probably am floundering here.