Fodder for thought

[David Koot]

The second beast was not something I personally had gotten into here. I thought we were discussing the first beast and the traditional view that it represents the papacy, and that the number is the numerical value of the title, VFD. The question of the 'beast,' the 'church,' the pope and the antichrist was what was at issue. I think that is quite a bit to bite off here, personally. Will take a whack at it. The balance of the chapter is intriguing enough, especially for 'Bushies.' But that is 'the rest of the story.'

Dave

[David Koot]

Interesting idea, Neil, and one which I personally hadn't thought of. Perhaps a dual application or overlapping applications would be appropriate here??? As for the grammatical issue, that is a question: individual person vs. mankind vs. BOTH! Hmmmm. Will need to mull that over.

Dave

[Bravus]

Only reason I got into the second beast is because the 666 verse is at the end of that section, not in the section about the first beast. If you're saying it pertains to the first beast, then you also said the first beast was a state power not an ecclesiastical one, which would seem to disqualify the papacy.

Honestly, I think we've gone too broad. My interest was in VFD and 666, and really I *still* have not either seen convincing evidence for it, or heard what Dave would consider convincing evidence against.

I think on that issue we're stuck in a logic warp: the evidence of whether VFD is a Catholic title can only be decided by Catholic testimony, but an a priori decision has been made that Catholic testimony is unreliable. Then we're just stuck trying to prove a negative.

[Amelia]

You all have me so confused now that I'm going to crawl back under my rock for a while.

[Bravus]

Heh - Dances with Eggheads

[David Koot]

Only reason I got into the second beast is because the 666 verse is at the end of that section, not in the section about the first beast. If you're saying it pertains to the first beast, then you also said the first beast was a state power not an ecclesiastical one, which would seem to disqualify the papacy.

[Bravus]

Heh, this is getting too much like work! Nonetheless, I'll play. /me pours another cup of coffee sinless hot beverage

1. That the purported document is in fact a forgery.

Admitted

2. That the Church, or individuals acting in behalf or by authority of the Church, created the document.

Unknown to me, but stipulated

3. That the Church endorsed and relied upon the document until it was proved to be a forgery.

Admitted

4. That the document describes the popes as successors of Peter.

Admitted

5. That the document describes Peter and the popes as 'VFD.'

Admitted

6. That the document states the pope's status as VFD as a reason for the Donation by Constantine.

Admitted, but as one of many reasons, not as the sole or main reason

7. That the Church, or individuals acting on behalf or by authority of the Church, wrote the description of the popes as VFD.

Unknown to me, since the author is unknown, but stipulated

8. That after the Church admitted the forgery, it did not retract the claim that the pope is VFD.

Admitted

9. That the Church teaches that the pope is VFD.

Not a simple question, and the main question at issue to which all other questions are subsumed, so can't be answered this way

10. That the Book of Canon Law of the Church describes the pope as VFD.

As I understand it, 'a' book of canon law, not 'the' book - but admitted

11. That the Book of Canon Law was endorsed by the Church.

Admitted

12. That the Book of Canon Law was published by the Church.

Admitted

13. That the Church did not dispute the statement in the Book of Canon Law, that the pope is VFD.

Admitted

14. That the Church does not deny that the pope is VFD.

Same response as to Question 9

15. That the book 'Prompta Bibliotecha' received the papal imprimatur.

Admitted

16. That 'Prompta Bibliotecha' was published by the Church.

Admitted

17. That 'Prompta Bibliotecha' describes the pope as VFD.

Unknown to me, but stipulated

18. That the Church did not refute Prompta Bibliotecha's description of the pope as VFD.

Admitted

19. That officials of the Church have described the pope as VFD.

Trickier: are Quasten and (the OSV guy) officials? Are profs at Andrews and the editor of the Review officials of the SDA church? I would admit that those two individuals (albeit in odd circumstances) did use the term to apply to the pope.

20. That agents of the Church have described the Pope as VFD.

Same response as for Question 19

21. That the Church did not retract the aforesaid statements.

If the statements were not made by Church officials then it is not the Church's role to retract them. Admitted that no official retrations have appeared, but denied that such were needed.

[Bravus]

(waited several hours to post this, due to forum downtime)

I think one of the logical fallacies in the argument you are constructing (and that the guy on the forum discussion about the crowns that I linked to made) is to assume that VFD is the key and core of the Donation. It’s not: it’s a single phrase, close to midway in a 4000 word document. If the church used all of this document, it was using the document as a whole to establish its power. You can argue that it was implicitly endorsing VFD, but the church’s purpose in using the document wasn’t to endorse VFD, it was to endorse its own power.

Here’s a translation of the Donation itself:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html

Here’s a very interesting Catholic discussion with heaps more detail on the Donation:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

[David Koot]

I think one of the logical fallacies in the argument you are constructing . . . is to assume that VFD is the key and core of the Donation.

[David Koot]

Thank-you, Bravus, for your excellent responses. Most helpful, indeed! I think some good progress has been made toward establishing the Church's accountability. When used in conjunction with interrogatories ('rogs') and production of documents, requests for admissions can help prep for depositions, where some real progress may be made.

9. That the Church teaches that the pope is VFD.

Not a simple question, and the main question at issue to which all other questions are subsumed, so can't be answered this way

1. I think it can be shown from a plethora of written sources, that the Church does in fact teach that the pope is such. Thus, this RA would be a springboard for further discovery.

2. HOWEVER, as to our inquiry here, the issue as I had understood it was whether or not the TITLE, VFD, is used officially by the Church. That is a separate issue from the TEACHING. The teaching is what counts, I believe, regardless of whether or not it is an official title. For example, the mystical woman, Babylon, the mother of harlots, is depicted as having that name written on her forehead. However, we don't look for a literal woman with that literal name showing up on her head! The whole thing about the title appearing on one of his hats, to me is a side issue, immaterial to the fulfillment of the prophecy. Of greater significance, I think, is the tie-in between the blasphemous name (unspecified) and the claim to be God on earth and 'Alter Christus,' which, I recall reading, the ordaining bishop pronounces at the coronation of the pope. THAT is the clincher. AND, it ties in with Paul's specification in 2 Th. 2:3,4:

"2Th 2:3 ¶ Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

By the way, I'm glad to note that you have progressed to a 'healthier' hot beverage! Good show!

Dave

[bevin]

Quote:

The teaching is what counts, I believe, regardless of whether or not it is an official title.

In other words, if you can find some way of phrasing, in Latin, an official teaching of the RC church that

(a) adds up to 666, and

( refers to the authority of the church

then you have believe you have a proof that shows the 666 of Rev is a reference to the Papacy.

That might meet your standards of evidence, but it certainly doesn't meet mine.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

In other words, if you can find some way of phrasing, in Latin, an official teaching of the RC church that

(a) adds up to 666, and

( refers to the authority of the church

then you have believe you have a proof that shows the 666 of Rev is a reference to the Papacy.

That is not what I have suggested. Nor have I personally, at this point, gotten into the issue of the number yet.

[bevin]

ROFLOL

You have been arguing like crazy that, just because two or three times in 2000 years someone somewhere has used the phrase VFD in an non-official document, that phrase is strongly connected to the papacy.

And now you want to claim that you are motivated to do so for some reason OTHER than 666? What a joke.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Now, let's put this inquiry on a more solid footing. Let's go back to Rev. 13:

" Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name." v. 1

I wish to look at three issues:

'on his heads'

'blasphemous'

'names'

1. The beast is symbolic, the heads are symbolic, logically the name is symbolic. One would not look for a literal blasphemous name stamped upon the head of this power! However, symbolically, the Father's name on the head, the seal in the forehead, the mark in the forehead, would seem to have significance. But in the other two cases, it is not a literal name written on the forehead. Logically, then, the beast's 'name' would not be written on a person's forehead or head. It is symbolic.

2. Blasphemous: In the NT, 'blasphemy' seems to be attributed to a claim of being God or equal to God, and having Divine powers such as forgiveness of sins. Whatever the 'name' is, then, we might expect to find a claim of being God or equivalent to God, and/or the power to forgive sins, at least. This would appear to be corroborated by the reference in 2 Thess., that the man of sin would appear, who would usurp the place of Christ, as the Greek indicates.

3. Name: The Gr. is 'onomata,' neuter plural accusative. Note that it is PLURAL. Louw-Nida has this to say about this form of the word: "a figurative extension of meaning of onoma ‘name,’" 33.126) (Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989.) 'Name' at times refers to 'character' and 'identity.' The concept is broader than 'title.'

In following posts, I shall develop these concepts as they apply to the Rev. 13 issues.

Dave

[David Koot]

I would like to pop in for a couple of minutes and add another piece to the picture. The identity of the first beast in Rev. 13 may be clearly understood by reference to Dan. 7. The description there of the Little Horn power mirrors that of the first beast in Rev. 13. As well, it provides some additional clues. Putting these clues together gives us a good picture of the entity and its blasphemous claims.

Thus, we may proceed with the inquiry on two levels:

1) Recognizing the identity of the first beast in Rev. 13, as the politico-religous entity known as the papacy, which succeeded to the power and perks of the Caesars, and the governance of the Western Empire, and recognizing the mechanisms by which the papacy consolidated its power over a superstitious people.

2) Plugging in the additional clues which appear in Dan. 7.

A bit of history can be helpful in reaching an understanding. The Romans practiced 'civic paganaism.' That is, the emperor was considered a god. Peoples of the empire were at liberty to practice their several religions, PROVIDED they acknowledged the divinity of the emperor! This custom was adopted by the papacy, and is practiced throughout the world today. Thus, the roots of the claim to divinity by the pope may be found in Roman custom, as well as in pagan religions with which Rome compromised in order, initially, to stop the persecution and, after Constantine's Donation (and he DID donate the governance of the Western Empire to the papacy in the 4th c.) to consolidate its power.

Dave