Revelation 13: Name and Number

[David Koot]

I am a bit embarrassed. Before I left the State, I thought I had started a thread about Revelation 13:1 - 10. But I couldn't remember the name of the thread, and couldn't find it. Perhaps I am mistaken. At any rate, the first and last verse of the chapter, in particular, would seem to provide interesting and important topics for study and discussion. I would like to explore on this thread the name and the number of the beast. Here is v. 1:

"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."

Traditionally, many students of Scripture have looked for a specific title appearing on a hat or headpiece. I should like to explore here, the meaning of the words, and seek to get a clearer picture of what the prophet is saying. I note, for starters, the following:

1) the beast is symbolic, not real;

2) the heads are symbolic, not real.

3) the name is stated to appear on its heads (plural)

Logically, this suggests to me that the name the prophet saw may also be symbolic, rather than a specific title.

Any thoughts?

Dave

[Beryl]

Hi, David, I would agree with you. Very often people forget(?) that the book of Revelation is full of symbols. Ever noticed that when Revelation speaks of a name on the forehead, it is really referring to the character of the one with the name?

Revelation 7:3 God's people are sealed on their foreheads. A visible seal? Well, only if you count that the character is visible! These people comprise the symbolic 144,000 -- a perfect "kingdom number".

Revelation 13:1 A symbolic beast, with 10 symbolic horns each with a symbolic crown, and each symbolic head has a blasphemous name -- logically also symbolic.

God bless,

Beryl

[David Koot]

Ever noticed that when Revelation speaks of a name on the forehead, it is really referring to the character of the one with the name?

That is what I am thinking, also. The character of the beast is what is referred to, which would seem to point back to the 2 Thess. reference about one sitting in the temple of God, calling himself God, and to the Dan. 7 reference about the little horn with eyes and a mouth speaking pompous things. I think this will be an interesting study.

Dave

[David Koot]

Now, getting to the word itself. The verse says that the beast has "on his heads a blasphemous name." What is the Greek word, and what is its meaning in this application? The word is 'onomata' and it is a neuter PLURAL accusative. The plural seems significant to me. Not just one name, but names. What kind of names? Names of 'blasphmhias,' blasphemy against God. I am a little puzzled why some versions render it 'name' singular. NASB shows it as plural, which it is. Also, however, there is no article, so it should properly be, 'on his heads names of blasphemy,' rather than 'the name(s) of blasphemy.' IOW the names are blasphemous, rather than the name being specifically, 'blasphemy.'

This seems to open the subject up a bit. Any thoughts on the above?

Dave

[jasd]

Re: blasphemy

Mebbe, you might back up and deal first -- with blasphemy?

[David Koot]

Not a bad idea. As for 'blasphemy,' the word is 'blasphhmias'which is a feminine singular genitive, lit. 'names blasphemous' or as we would say, 'blasphemous names.' Jesus was accused of blasphemy when He forgave sins and claimed to be the Messiah. Does the entity described in Rev. 13:1 - 10 claim the power to forgive sins and to stand in the place of God, as God in the flesh?

On another point, I note that while in v. 2, onomata occurs in the plural, later in the chapter, with reference to the number of the name, it occurs in the singular, as in v. 17, onomatos. This is interesting, and the contrast certainly calls for careful study.

Dave

[David Koot]

Now, I should like to delve further into the issue of the 'name(s).' As noted previously, it occurs in the plural in v. 1, and certainly would appear to be symbolic, along with the description of the beast and its heads and horns, etc. HOWEVER, later in the chapter, it occurs in the singular, to wit:

"16He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,

17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

Here, the 'name' is singular rather than plural, and the setting is much more literal. Real people are receiving the mark of the beast, or his name, or the number of his name (singular.) What accounts for the difference in number? Perhaps the seven heads represent different aspects or manifestations of the beast power, whether over time, or in some other dimension. It would seem difficult to verify the true meaning of that. HOWEVER, what we do know is that in v. 17, 'name' is singular, hence one particular name is at issue at the time the mark of the beast is imposed upon the world. And, that name has a number. And, it is blasphemous. And, it has to do with 'man,' either 'a man' specifically, or 'mankind' generally--or both, as NeilD suggested. AND, this number is specific, and capable of calculation.

Dave

[skyblue888]

I agree that the number 144,000 is a symbolic number just as the number 12,000 and the names of the tribes in chapter 7 of Revelation are symbolic.

[David Koot]

Continuing our study of the 'name' (singular) in v. 17 ff:

1) it is singular, that is, one of the names appearing on the seven heads of the beast (v. 1);

2) it pertains to a man (v. 18) At this point, it may be well to revisit the issue of 'man' as a specific man vs. 'man' generally, since there is no article. Granted that it could be translated either way, as the verse reads. However, the 'prophetic twin' of Revelation, the book of Daniel, contains a passage which also appears to describe this phenomenon. Note ch. 7, v. 8:

"Da 7:8 "I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words."

Compare vv. 24, 25:

"Da 7:24 The ten horns are ten kings Who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall rise after them; He shall be different from the first ones, And shall subdue three kings.

25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, Shall persecute the saints of the Most High, And shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand For a time and times and half a time."

We see a clear correlation with Rev. 13 here. Indeed, the little horn with eyes and a mouth speaking great things, a man speaking great things, pompous things, blasphemy. THAT will be the issue in the last days.

Now then, what does the Bible desribe as blasphemy? Claiming to be God, or claiming powers belonging to God. Accepting that the beast of Rev. 13 is the politicoreligious entity known as the papacy, the head of the papacy is a man. That man has spoken pompous words AGAINST the Most High, claiming to be God! THERE is where we may focus our attention to narrow down the field.

Dave

[jasd]

>>Jesus was accused of blasphemy when He forgave sins and claimed to be the Messiah. Does the entity described in Rev. 13:1 - 10 claim the power to forgive sins…<<

Umm, from a contrarian: blasphemyandpope per protesting .orgs

gods

priests

kings

adopted

sons and daughters of Gd

received the Spirit of Gd

Christ in us

we in Him

co-heirs with Christ

given dominion over all things in heaven and earth

seated at the right hand of Gd

etc

Treading gingerly… for the sensibilities of those second, third, and fourth party, and of that stringer or t’other who may feel threatened by an exchange of ideas…

KJV Matt 6:14 For if ye forgive<863> men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive<863> you:

KJV Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven<863> thee.

Notice in the above texts that “forgive” and “forgiven” are Christ’s words.

KJV Mark 2:6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, v7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive<863> sins but God only?

Notice in the above texts that it was “certain of the scribes” who “reasoned in their hearts” concerning blasphemy.

KJV Matt 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, … v33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? … v36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

It may behoove one to read the entire above passage in Matthew and note: that Jesus had some rather pithy things to say to the scribes and Pharisees – leading one to ascertain by Writ that it may be unwise to depend upon the beliefs of scribes – to develop doctrine.

KJV Jn 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit<863>, they are remitted<863> unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Conclusion: by the very words of Jesus Christ and by developed doctrine – Writ appears to forward a positive statement that you, Xtian believer, have authority to forgive sins. If you, then not the Pope? or priests? or the Elders who visit and forgive the sins of the sick? or…

Remit:

Strong’s; to send

Louw-Nida; 23.109 “to send away”

Thayer; to send

LSJ; to send forth, discharge

YLT John 20:23 if of any ye may loose the sins, they are loosed to them; if of any ye may retain, they have been retained.'

NASB, GWT, ASV, WEB – and others translate “forgive/forgiven” with others using a congnate.

[pacunurse30]

>>Jesus was accused of blasphemy when He forgave sins and claimed to be the Messiah. Does the entity described in Rev. 13:1 - 10 claim the power to forgive sins…<<

Umm, from a contrarian: blasphemyandpope per protesting .orgs

gods

priests

kings

adopted

sons and daughters of Gd

received the Spirit of Gd

Christ in us

we in Him

co-heirs with Christ

given dominion over all things in heaven and earth

seated at the right hand of Gd

etc

Treading gingerly… for the sensibilities of those second, third, and fourth party, and of that stringer or t’other who may feel threatened by an exchange of ideas…

KJV Matt 6:14 For if ye forgive<863> men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive<863> you:

KJV Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven<863> thee.

Notice in the above texts that “forgive” and “forgiven” are Christ’s words.

KJV Mark 2:6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, v7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive<863> sins but God only?

Notice in the above texts that it was “certain of the scribes” who “reasoned in their hearts” concerning blasphemy.

KJV Matt 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, … v33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? … v36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

It may behoove one to read the entire above passage in Matthew and note: that Jesus had some rather pithy things to say to the scribes and Pharisees – leading one to ascertain by Writ that it may be unwise to depend upon the beliefs of scribes – to develop doctrine.

KJV Jn 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit<863>, they are remitted<863> unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Conclusion: by the very words of Jesus Christ and by developed doctrine – Writ appears to forward a positive statement that you, Xtian believer, have authority to forgive sins. If you, then not the Pope? or priests? or the Elders who visit and forgive the sins of the sick? or…

Remit:

Strong’s; to send

Louw-Nida; 23.109 “to send away”

Thayer; to send

LSJ; to send forth, discharge

YLT John 20:23 if of any ye may loose the sins, they are loosed to them; if of any ye may retain, they have been retained.'

NASB, GWT, ASV, WEB – and others translate “forgive/forgiven” with others using a congnate.

The difference between what is taught in the bible and what is taught in Catholicism is that the priest and pope are the only ones who have the authority to forgive sins. In other words, it is not good enough for a person to just get on their knees and ask God directly for forgiveness (even though the bible says we can now come boldly before the throne of grace). The Catholic MUST go to confession in order for that sin to be cleansed. This is contrary to what the bible says about confessing your sins to God and being confident that he is faithful and just to forgive your sins AND cleanse you from all unrighteousness (something the priest has no authority or power to do).

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

pacnurse30 said:

Quote:

The difference between what is taught in the bible and what is taught in Catholicism is that the priest and pope are the only ones who have the authority to forgive sins. In other words, it is not good enough for a person to just get on their knees and ask God directly for forgiveness (even though the bible says we can now come boldly before the throne of grace). The Catholic MUST go to confession in order for that sin to be cleansed. This is contrary to what the bible says about confessing your sins to God and being confident that he is faithful and just to forgive your sins AND cleanse you from all unrighteousness (something the priest has no authority or power to do).

From whom do you get your info? Do you talk to Catholics? Ask them what they think? I know a lot of Catholics who do not subscribe to such nonsense. Maybe some do, but you're painting with an awfully big brush here...

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

**sigh**

OTOH, maybe most Catholics DO believe such. I just get twitchy when MEMBERS of a denomination get discussed, rather than the doctrines...

[jasd]

>>(something the priest has no authority or power to do).<<

I’m not a dedicated apologist for the Universal church: their past history, sometimes, makes it more difficult than I am capable of dealing with, that is without mention, further, of allusion made…:

“Anybody who is acquainted with the state of affairs in the Vatican in the last 35 years is well aware that the prince of darkness has had and still has his surrogates in the court of St. Peter in Rome.” --Fr Malachi Martin

“… the smoke of Satan which has entered the Sanctuary …” --Pope Paul VI

(the above being “an oblique reference to an [rumored] enthronement ceremony by Satanists in the Vatican”) [ed.jasd]

One cannot take license and translate the above as indicting and labeling the Pope -- Antichrist.

That said, the Bible bears record that the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom (being more egregious in their actions) behaved more abominably than those whom Gd cast out of the land – yet Gd, putting away Ephraim-Israel, held to the Kingdom of Judah.

I simply addressed the point made, accepted, and used as a dogmatic bludgeon against others of the body of Christ; that is, “who can forgive sins except Gd”.

I used only Writ to proffer that the protesting .orgs have their own shibboleths that are contrary to Writ without indulging in the "it is blasphemy for man to forgive sin" when upbraiding the belief system of Catholics. Remember, that

the office and function of Elder and that of ‘priest’ are the same -- ‘priest’ being but an etymological extension of

Presbyter:

/ A priest in various hierarchical churches

/ An elder of the congregation in the early Christian church.

[Late Latin, from Greek presbuteros, from comparative of presbus, old man; ... Indo-European roots.]

[John317]

pacnurse30 said:

Quote:

The difference between what is taught in the bible and what is taught in Catholicism is that the priest and pope are the only ones who have the authority to forgive sins. In other words, it is not good enough for a person to just get on their knees and ask God directly for forgiveness (even though the bible says we can now come boldly before the throne of grace). The Catholic MUST go to confession in order for that sin to be cleansed. This is contrary to what the bible says about confessing your sins to God and being confident that he is faithful and just to forgive your sins AND cleanse you from all unrighteousness (something the priest has no authority or power to do).

From whom do you get your info? Do you talk to Catholics? Ask them what they think? I know a lot of Catholics who do not subscribe to such nonsense. Maybe some do, but you're painting with an awfully big brush here...

Individual Catholics believe a lot of different things, but what's important is what the official doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are and what they have always been. You can get a lot of different answers from Christians about what the Christian faith is, but what's important is the teaching of the New Testament, not someone's opinion.

You may have noticed that the Roman Catholic Church is not a democratically run organization. It does not recognize the opinion of the laity, so what it thinks is really of no practical importance. The Church leadership will even tell you this openly. Notice, for instance, the lack of influence of the laity on the issue of abortion, of contraception or any number of other questions facing the Church today. To find out what the Catholic church is all about, therefore, you really have to go to its official publications, such as the pope's encyclicals, catechisms, official pronouncements; and not ask average people their opinions.

It's best, like you said, to discuss doctrine and not individuals. The way you do this is to find out what the Catholic church actually teaches and believes. How do we do this? Certainly not by taking a poll of average Catholics. All that will get you is a more or less inaccurate description of what the average Catholic believes, which is quite different indeed from what the Church itself teaches. To get that, you have to ask the people who make that determination, which you will find are the priests, seminary teachers, bishops, cardinals, and popes. Everyone else is truly simply a spectator.

I'm not saying this as someone who is opposed to Catholics per se. I actually find in the Catholic church a great deal that is attractive and admirable. Its translations of the Bible are among the best and most accurate translations produced if judged by the critical text. Its educational system at the higher levels are the best. It's appreciation of the arts is wonderful. Its political and philosophical sophistication makes everyone else look foolish and incompetant. However, I also know God's Word, prophecy, and the history of the church along with its false but impressive traditions and doctrines.

My wife was Catholic when I married her 21 years ago and all of her very large family in Mexico are Roman Catholic. Most of them think the catechism is the Bible and they don't care a hoot what the pope says. Does that matter? It doesn't as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, so long as they attend Mass and Confession a few times a year and pay for prayers for their mother and father to get out of purgatory whenever that should happen. My wife is just really glad she knows what the Bible teaches about that so she doesn't have to worry about them any more. Just wonder why the priest keeps telling them he's not sure if the folks are in heaven yet. And why they tell my wife's oldest sister that God is more likely to answer her prayers for her sick boy if she crawls on her bleeding knees over rocks and dirt to the Virgin of Guadalupe.

[John317]

>>(something the priest has no authority or power to do).

I?m not a dedicated apologist for the Universal church: their past history, sometimes, makes it more difficult than I am capable of dealing with, that is without mention, further, of allusion made?:

?Anybody who is acquainted with the state of affairs in the Vatican in the last 35 years is well aware that the prince of darkness has had and still has his surrogates in the court of St. Peter in Rome.? --Fr Malachi Martin

??...I used only Writ to proffer that the protesting .orgs have their own shibboleths that are contrary to Writ without indulging in the "it is blasphemy for man to forgive sin" when upbraiding the belief system of Catholics. Remember, that

the office and function of Elder and that of ?priest? are the same -- ?priest? being but an etymological extension of

Presbyter:

/ A priest in various hierarchical churches

/ An elder of the congregation in the early Christian church.

[Late Latin, from Greek presbuteros, from comparative of presbus, old man; ... Indo-European roots.]

Do you believe it Biblically correct for the priest to hear our confessions of sins and to say the sins are forgiven?

The last time I looked into it, the church elder never claimed the power to forgive sins, an authority that God and Christ alone possess. Each of us can and should forgive people their offences done against us personally, but we have no right or authority to forgive people for sins they commit against another human or against God. Yet that is claimed to be accomplished in the Catholic confession on a regular basis for millions every week of the year.

The really terrible thing about this is that the Mass takes away from Christ's High Priesthood in the heavenly sanctuary. It does not point people to what Christ is doing in the sanctuary above, which is the focus of the Bible. Christ is a personal Savior who is close to each believer, but the Catholic doctrine teaches and encourages Catholics to pray to "the Mother of God" (who, if Ecc. 9: 5 is not lying, is sleeping unconsciously in her grave) and to innumerable dead people whom they are led to believe will intercede for them with their beloved and sympathetic Lord.

[jasd]

>>Do you believe it Biblically correct for the priest to hear our confessions of sins and to say the sins are forgiven?<<

It is Biblically correct; moreover, that same Holy Writ states that whatsoever sins are retained – they are retained.

I’ve posted to that question June 10th on this very thread: so, why the question?

>>The last time I looked into it, the church elder never claimed the power to forgive sins,<<

…wherein they do err.

>>…an authority that God and Christ alone possess.<<

That authority, in part (or whole?), is endued in the Xtian believer – according to Writ.

>>Each of us can and should forgive people their offences done against us personally, but we have no right or authority to forgive people for sins they commit against another human or against God.<<

That is not a constraint imposed by context.

>>Yet that is claimed to be accomplished in the Catholic confession on a regular basis for millions every week of the year.<<

Bully for them – they’ve gotten something right.

>>The really terrible thing about this is that the Mass takes away from Christ's High Priesthood in the heavenly sanctuary.

First, there is appears to be no Biblical teaching, implicit or explicit, that speaks to an ongoing ministering priesthood in the heavenly sanctuary. Second, the words of Jesus Christ were that as often as you do this you do so in remembrance of Him. So, why should not one remember Him on a more regular basis than quarterly?

>>It does not point people to what Christ is doing in the sanctuary above, which is the focus of the Bible.<<

I suggest that that is dogmatic and a construction. It coincided too neatly with the ‘great disappointment’ and smacks of face-saving. Moreover, disabuse me should I err, but that message was not delivered by nor to a holy prophet – but by a layperson taking a shortcut through the cornfield. To cleave to

revelation by the laity opens up serious Biblical questions regard tongues and other gifts. Would one want to go there?

>>Christ is a personal Savior who is close to each believer,<<

Exactamente!

>>…but the Catholic doctrine teaches and encourages Catholics to pray to "the Mother of God" (who, if Ecc. 9: 5 is not lying, is sleeping unconsciously in her grave)<<

…and yet, there are those who would have Moses alive and in the presence of Almighty Gd; as well, Enoch and Elijah, and the firstfruits. How does one become so selective as to exclude the Mother of Gd?

Ecclesiastes 9:5. Last I looked, that is OT. One expects that when the conditions are set that firstfruits might be taken, there does not remain an interminable time ‘til one may further reap of the yield. The conditions were met in Jesus Christ once and for all.

>>…and to innumerable dead people whom they are led to believe will intercede for them with their beloved and sympathetic Lord.<<

Do you not intercede for others? why then not believe others might intercede or pray on your behalf? especially the spirits of just men made perfect… Perhaps, it is that many do not know how to pray or ask – not understanding the mission of the HS.

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, v23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all,and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Christ yet being THE Mediator, the ultimate Mediator.

Rev 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

[David Koot]

As the discussion about what constitutes blasphemy continues, I would like to take a closer look at the name/number issue. This seems to be tied together in Rev. 13:

"Re 13:17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is six hundred and sixty-six."

It is the number of his name. And the name is that of a man. "Name" we can understand in a somewhat broader sense than one's surname, for example. Perhaps John317 can correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that 'name' as used here can mean either 'title' or 'character' or 'characteristic.' (per Louw-Nida) We have also seen, earlier in the chapter, that the name or title or characteristic is blasphemous. Thus, we line up and connect the concepts:

NAME

NUMBER

MAN

BLASPHEMOUS

MARK

As for the mark: "Sunday is our mark of authority. The Church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact." (Catholic Record, 1924) Indeed, the change of God's law (Catholic Encyclopedia) is a mark of authority, and of sovereignty. The church claims the power to change God's law, and to be above the Bible. The mark of that claim of authority has been stated to be the change of the Sabbath.

The issue, then, I submit, is one of sovereignty. The papacy claims sovereignty over God, indeed claims to be God on earth, to stand in the place of God, claiming to be God (2 Thess.) The papacy claims to be the substitute God. The pope claims to be the substitute Son of God, Christ in the flesh.

The pope has a number of titles, such as pontifex maximus. ALL of his names/titles are not at issue in the last days. Only one is specified, and that one is said to be blasphemous, and to have a number which is to be calculated. By the way, the verb is aorist active imperative. 'Let him' may be a poor rendering, suggesting permission rather than a command. (compare Louw-Nida) And, the sense of it is, to 'count up.' (Louw-Nida) As for the command to 'count up' the number of his name, note BAGD on this occurrence of arithmon: "Rv 13:17f, 15:2 refer to numerology, which was quite familiar to the people of ancient times; acc. to it, since each Gk. letter has a numerical value, a name could be replaced by a number representing the total of the numerical values of the letters making up the name"

(Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979.)

Bingo! Therefore, God COMMANDS (imperative) us to count up the numerical value of the blasphemous title of the pope. Thus, we need only identify the several titles of the pope, and determine which if any is blasphemous within the context of the mark of authority of the papacy. Voila!

And now, messieurs, we see the picture coming together. How about that title of the pope? It is one that is blasphemous, and it has to do with the claim of authority of being God, and the title has the numerical value of 666.

Dave

[John317]

Quote:

John317: >>Do you believe it Biblically correct for the priest to hear our confessions of sins and to say the sins are forgiven?

Quote:

It is Biblically correct; moreover, that same Holy Writ states that whatsoever sins are retained ? they are retained.

I?ve posted to that question June 10th on this very thread: so, why the question?

Please do more than quote a few words of Scripture. Show this is the meaning of the Scriptures.

>>The last time I looked into it, the church elder never claimed the power to forgive sins,

?

Quote:

wherein they do err.

Show this please from Scripture. Maybe you misunderstood me. I am saying the Bible gives no special power to the church elder to forgive sins. We can forgive people, as I said, for those sins or offenses people do against us personally, but only God can forgive them in the ultimate sense, because only He knows the mind and heart.

Quote:

>>?an authority that God and Christ alone possess.

That authority, in part (or whole?), is endued in the Xtian believer ? according to Writ.

You have any Scriptural references for that conclusion?

>>Each of us can and should forgive people their offences done against us personally, but we have no right or authority to forgive people for sins they commit against another human or against God.

Quote:

That is not a constraint imposed by context.

Please show from Scripture that what I've said is wrong. I'm all ears (I mean, eyes).

>>Yet that is claimed to be accomplished in the Catholic confession on a regular basis for millions every week of the year.

Quote:

Bully for them ? they?ve gotten something right.

I would like to see what argument and evidence you use from Scripture to base your conclusion that the Catholic confession is "right."

>>The really terrible thing about this is that the Mass takes away from Christ's High Priesthood in the heavenly sanctuary.

Quote:

First, there is appears to be no Biblical teaching, implicit or explicit, that speaks to an ongoing ministering priesthood in the heavenly sanctuary.

Christ "abideth a priest continually", "ever liveth to make intercession for us," and "was consecrated as high priest for evermore," according to Hebrews 7: 3; 7: 25 & 28. All of that is taking place now in heaven and will continue to take place there until He comes as our King, at which time He will no longer be our High Priest. That is the meaning of Hebrews 9: 27. He won't be coming then as a sin bearer but as King and Judge.

Quote:

Second, the words of Jesus Christ were that as often as you do this you do so in remembrance of Him. So, why should not one remember Him on a more regular basis than quarterly?

Jesus' words don't tell us how often to have this service. It simply says that as often as we eat the bread and drink the fruit of the grape we do it in remembrance of Him until He returns. Besides, believers are free to do this every day if they want. It's wonderful to do in the privacy of one's home and among one's family and friends if one feels led by the Spirit to do this.

>>It does not point people to what Christ is doing in the sanctuary above, which is the focus of the Bible.

Quote:

I suggest that that is dogmatic and a construction. It coincided too neatly with the ?great disappointment? and smacks of face-saving. Moreover, disabuse me should I err, but that message was not delivered by nor to a holy prophet ? but by a layperson taking a shortcut through the cornfield.

I suggest that it is Biblical and is in accordance with the books of Daniel and Revelation. I would be happy to spend as long as you like discussing this and presenting the evidence for it from the Bible.

A lay person, such as Hiram Edson, is able to understand Scripture just as well as a professional pastor or minister or priest, isn't he?

By the way, have you examine for yourself the evidence, such as in the article written by O. R. L. Crosier? You can get copies of it and study the evidence for yourself. Also read the chapters in Ellen White's book, The Great Controversy, having to do with this incident. My own father wrote a book about it called, The Urgent Voice, a biography of William Miller. You might also study the books written and published by the Daniel and Revlelation Committee. One of them is called Doctrine of the Sanctuary, A Historical Survey. They are well worth reading and very well researched and documented. That is, if you are sincere in your interest in studying the question with a view toward finding out the truth about it.

Quote:

To cleave to

revelation by the laity opens up serious Biblical questions regard tongues and other gifts. Would one want to go there?

"Revelation by the laity"? You apparently misunderstand. There was no "revelation" by Hiram Edson. He merely had an impression or a memory from something he remembered studying in the Bible. No one ever suggested anyone should believe based on Hiram Edson's word. It was something that was studied from the Bible and must be based on Scripture, not on some man's idea.

But when it comes to "tongues," that is a totally different subject, but one which I would be happy to discuss with you if you like.

>>Christ is a personal Savior who is close to each believer,

Quote:

Exactamente!

>>?but the Catholic doctrine teaches and encourages Catholics to pray to "the Mother of God" (who, if Ecc. 9: 5 is not lying, is sleeping unconsciously in her grave)

Quote:

and yet, there are those who would have Moses alive and in the presence of Almighty Gd; as well, Enoch and Elijah, and the firstfruits. How does one become so selective as to exclude the Mother of Gd?

Because there is nothing in the Bible about Mary going to heaven, and there is Bible evidence for the others you refer to here. That is why. Besides, the idea of Mary ascending to heaven can be easily traced historically. Makes a bid difference. One is human tradition and is based on the so-called authority of popes and the other is based on Scripture.

Quote:

Ecclesiastes 9:5. Last I looked, that is OT.

Yes, you are absolutely right that Ecc. is the Old Testament, the same Old Testament that Jesus used to prove that He is the Messiah. It is God's Word, and as such is our final authority for truth. Both the Old and New are equally the Word of God and Holy Scripture.

>>?and to innumerable dead people whom they are led to believe will intercede for them with their beloved and sympathetic Lord.

Quote:

Do you not intercede for others? why then not believe others might intercede or pray on your behalf? especially the spirits of just men made perfect? Perhaps, it is that many do not know how to pray or ask ? not understanding the mission of the HS.

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, v23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all,and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Christ yet being THE Mediator, the ultimate Mediator.

Rev 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

None of those are dead people prior to a resurrection, which the only way dead people go to be with the Lord, according to Paul. The Bible says clearly that the dead do not and cannot praise the Lord. The dead do not know anything. The dead are unconscious in their graves awaiting the resurrection. Have you not read what the Bible teaches about what happens when we die and about the nature of man in death? We really should study this subject in detail some time.

By way, JASD, do you know how to use the editing processes? If not, ask me some time I will do what I can to help you with it.

[David Koot]

Just as a point of interest, as far as the papacy's claims, note a couple of items. First, this excerpt from 'Eucharistic Meditations':

"Thou art a priest forever: says the ordaining bishop… He is no longer a man, a sinful child of Adam, but an ‘Alter Christus,’ another Christ . . . Forever a priest of the Most High, with power over the Almighty."

Note John Paul II's reference to the ordination pronouncement in a letter written to the priests on 'Holy Thursday' in 1991:

'"Sacerdos alter Christus"'

Earlier this year, Claudio Cardinal Hummes at the Vatican, Prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, had this to say:

"The Church, in conferring the sacrament of orders, ontologically constitutes the priest as an "alter Christus," or as some say, an "ipse Christus"" (via Internet letter to the priesthood, January 24, 2007, on the occasion of the Memorial of St. Francis de Sales)

At any rate, all this does tend to indicate the papacy's notions about 'alter Christus.'

DAve

[John317]

Just as a point of interest, as far as the papacy's claims, note a couple of items. First, this excerpt from 'Eucharistic Meditations':

"Thou art a priest forever: says the ordaining bishop? He is no longer a man, a sinful child of Adam, but an ?Alter Christus,? another Christ . . . Forever a priest of the Most High, with power over the Almighty."

Note John Paul II's reference to the ordination pronouncement in a letter written to the priests on 'Holy Thursday' in 1991:

'"Sacerdos alter Christus"'

Earlier this year, Claudio Cardinal Hummes at the Vatican, Prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, had this to say:

"The Church, in conferring the sacrament of orders, ontologically constitutes the priest as an "alter Christus," or as some say, an "ipse Christus"" (via Internet letter to the priesthood, January 24, 2007, on the occasion of the Memorial of St. Francis de Sales)

At any rate, all this does tend to indicate the papacy's notions about 'alter Christus.'

DAve

Wow-- just incredible what claims are made. I knew about some others but I had never read those particular claims before. Thanks for putting those up here.

[David Koot]

And now, focusing a bit more on the name, I post here an article from one of Bevin's favorite reference sources--Wikipedia. This article is entitled, 'Vicar of Christ.'

"Vicar of Christ (Latin Vicarius Christi) has been used since Pope Gelasius I, alongside a few rarer 'vicarial' titles, as one of the titles of the Bishop of Rome —the Pope— as head of the universal apostolic Catholic Church.

History

This title of the pope implies his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Catholic Church. It is founded on the words of Jesus Christ to St. Peter - "Feed my lambs ... Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17). The Catholic Church believes Jesus made St. Peter the leader of the Apostles, hence, Prince of the Apostles, and constituted him as the guardian of His entire flock (the Church) in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise He made in Matthew 16:18-19.

In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, such as Vicar of St. Peter, Vicar of the Prince of the Apostles (again referring to St. Peter, the first Pope) and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Catholic Church on earth, which Catholics believe he bears by virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Pope Innocent III removed bishops by appealing to his power as Vicar of Christ (cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep."). He declared that Christ had given such power only to His vicar, Peter and his successors (cap. "Quanto", 3, ibid.) and stated that the Roman Pontiff is "the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ" (cap. "Licet", 4, ibid.).

The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. "Fundamenta ejus", 17, "De elect.", in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.

The word "vicar" means one who serves as a substitute, and is derived from the word "vicarious." [emphasis supplied]

Wikipedia footnotes as follows:

"This article incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913."

I should also like to add this brief excerpt in regard to the several titles of the pope, from the article, 'Vicarius Filii Dei:

"The earliest extant record of a Protestant writer on this subject is that of Professor Andreas Helwig in 1612. In his work Antichristus Romanus he took fifteen titles in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin and computed their numerical equivalents in those languages, arriving at the number 666 mentioned in the Book of Revelation. Out of all these titles, he preferred to single out Vicarius Filii Dei, for the reason that it met "all the conditions which [Cardinal] Bellarmine had thus far demanded . . ."

So, the chase continues, and the quarry is being brought to bay. Tally ho!

[bevin]

Quote:

I post here an article from one of Bevin's favorite reference sources--Wikipedia.

I use it as an excellent starting point - but you have to remember it can be editted by anyone to say anything.

The information you get from it provides excellent targets for further searches, and pointers into sources of known authorship

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Indeed. I appreciated the cite to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Such 'pop' sources as Wikipedia often do contain links to more authoritative sources.

Dave

[John317]

Thanks very much for that excellent and very useful information, Dave.

The pope is viewed, then, as a substitute for Christ, very similar to the Greek preposition, "anti," or "in place of." No claim is being made for the pope that he is a prophet.