Revelation 13: Name and Number

[David Koot]

Yes, yes, that's it exactly. So often, we impose our Anglo-American concept of 'anti' upon John writing to the Greek-speaking world, when, in fact, it means just what you said, 'in place of' or to 'supplant.' This guy's TITLE and claim of authority fits EXACTLY what the Bible warns against!!!

We see, now, how every element of the prophecy which we have examined so far, is fulfilled by the application to the papacy. One of the pope's titles is at issue in the last days, and that title is blasphemous, that is, the claim of standing in the place of God, ("Antichrist," that is, supplanting Christ) and that title has a numeric value which we are called upon to calculate. In our search for that title, we reasonably should look to the official language of the papacy, which is Latin, and apply Latin numbering. We shall take a further look at this a bit later.

The quarry, indeed, is at bay.

[there buster]

When did that title come into existence?

[David Koot]

When did that title come into existence?

The title 'Vicarius Christi' has been in use at least since the time of pope Gelasius I (elected 490's A.D.) 'Vicarius Filii Dei' is of less certain origin, but certainly was claimed by the papacy at the zenith of its power, under the pontificates of Gregory VII and Innocent III. Our friend Professor Helwig, writing back in 1612, reportedly found that the several titles of the pope all added up to 666, including VFD. We shall, however, explore the 'numerology' issue a bit later.

Dave

[jasd]

>>Yes, yes, that's it exactly. So often, we impose our Anglo-American concept of 'anti' upon John writing to the Greek-speaking world, when, in fact, it means just what you said, 'in place of' or to 'supplant.' This guy's TITLE and claim of authority fits EXACTLY what the Bible warns against!!!<<

Tskity, tskity, tsk.

Umm, I recall that you've energetically suggested that such as Strong's and Thayers were much too lightweight and that lexicons such as BGAD, Kittel, and Louw-Nida, rather, be used.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

That said, there are lexicons that still suggest a ‘substitute’ or the sense of ‘identical’ where it is used in 1 John 2:22.

One of those 'other' lexicons is Louw-Nida. It allows that in the instance of 1 John 2:22 the sense may be "identical". The other uses of "antichrist(s)" are in the sense of 'against' -- as it is in modern usage.

Is this a 'so much for Louw-Nida'?

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

Would that we all be vicars for Christ! (substitute attests the genuine, does it not?)

>>...official language of the papacy, which is Latin, and apply Latin numbering.<<

Perhaps, it is as the "proper exegesis of Writ" (not my formula) advocates -- precept upon precept, line upon line, here..., there...,

and search Writ for other instance(s) of the use of 666: before resorting to 'this and that' arising out of Reformation hysteria.

Aside: what would you make of Josephus' "The 'High Priest' (Jerusalem) wore scarlet and gold and a three-tiered head covering" (paraphrased)

I remember hearing all sort of stuff about a three-tiered crown and the colours scarlet and gold...

and the papacy.

[David Koot]

One of those 'other' lexicons is Louw-Nida.

Note L-N on vv. 18 and 22:

"53.83 one who is opposed to Christ, in the sense of usurping the role of Christ - ‘antichrist.’"

[John317]

>>Yes, yes, that's it exactly. So often, we impose our Anglo-American concept of 'anti' upon John writing to the Greek-speaking world, when, in fact, it means just what you said, 'in place of' or to 'supplant.' This guy's TITLE and claim of authority fits EXACTLY what the Bible warns against!!!

Tskity, tskity, tsk.

Umm, I recall that you've energetically suggested that such as Strong's and Thayers were much too lightweight and that lexicons such as BGAD, Kittel, and Louw-Nida, rather, be used.

When it comes to basic definitions of Greek words, they all will say the same thing. It is when you want to go deeper than basic definitions or into finding more information, that one will want to consult more comprehensive sources. But the point is the primary definition of the Greek preposition, anti+ genitive, is "in place of," "instead of," or "for." It can also carry the meaning of "against" or "in opposition to." In fact, its original meaning was "opposite." Both meanings are involved in what the Bible says about antichrist, particularly the verses in 1 John and 2 John.

Given other information we have in Scripture about the antichrist power, it is safe to say it would be unreasonable to look for a power that announces to the world that it is against Jesus Christ. That would not be too deceptive but would rather alert the whole world about its true motives and plans.

[jasd]

>>Note L-N on vv. 18 and 22:

"53.83 one who is opposed to Christ, in the sense of usurping the role of Christ - ‘antichrist.’"<<

...still reads, 'against'. Usurpation explicitly reads 'against'

That stated, the papacy has always declared Jesus Christ Redeemer, Saviour, Son of Gd, Gd, etc. That sounds like a recognition of the subordinate position of the Pope vis-à-vis... That sounds like Vicar of Christ in the truest sense. As I've already noted: we should all seek to represent Jesus Christ -- as subjective as may be that representation.

Hey, admittedly, the Universal church and the papacy have committed acts that cannot be spoken of in kindly manner: that, however, does not translate to a validation of Reformationist charges that do not harmonize with Writ.

[John317]

null

Originally Posted By: jasd

>>Note L-N on vv. 18 and 22:

"53.83 one who is opposed to Christ, in the sense of usurping the role of Christ - ?antichrist.?"

...still reads, 'against'. Usurpation explicitly reads 'against'

That stated, the papacy has always declared Jesus Christ Redeemer, Saviour, Son of Gd, Gd, etc. That sounds like a recognition of the subordinate position of the Pope vis-à-vis... That sounds like Vicar of Christ in the truest sense. As I've already noted: we should all seek to represent Jesus Christ -- as subjective as may be that representation.

I don't think anyone here would say that Cathlocism or even the Papacy lacks any good qualities at all. There are elements of the gospel that can still be heard there. For instance, the Trinity, Christ's death for sinners and His resurrection. SDAs would be among the first to say that God has many good, honest people in the Catholic church. God holds us accountable for the truth we understand and about which we are under conviction. Most Catholics are not fully aware of the true Sabbath, for instance, or of the Bible truth concerning the condition of man in death. They are not aware of the false doctrines regarding the Mass or the confession, teachings that are contrary to God's Word. These are things that people come to realize as they study and, hopefully, hear the true Word of God proclaimed clearly.

Quote:

Hey, admittedly, the Universal church and the papacy have committed acts that cannot be spoken of in kindly manner: that, however, does not translate to a validation of Reformationist charges that do not harmonize with Writ.

Stick around. Study. Listen, read. Consider.

[jasd]

>>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.<<

Is that really true? that it matters not whether the sin be mortal or venial? that the Universal church has excised the ‘Lord’s Prayer’?

>>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).<<

I suppose that I may err – I’ve always understood (Catholic friends) that both are encouraged, that is, pray to Gd and His Son Jesus, and the need for sacramental confession.

>>The Catholic MUST go to confession in order for that sin to be cleansed.<<

Again, is that truly so?

>>This is contrary to what the bible says…<<

If the question turns upon MUST, that would be true.

>>…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<<

That is Biblical. That is true.

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

The following may be taken as allusional or rhetorical…

Who are the priests of the Melchizedekian order? would they be constrained to disannul

Jn 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

Jn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

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

[David Koot]

Usurpation explicitly reads 'against'

'Reads' where? What verse? Also, please give a cite for your position or definition here.

[jasd]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: jasd

Usurpation explicitly reads 'against'

>>'Reads' where? What verse? Also, please give a cite for your position or definition here.<<

From the Book of Common English Vernacularism or Usage

Usurp: seize something without right: to use something without the right to do so

Thesaurus --- otherwise known as

jasd 12:12 SYNONYMS appropriate, arrogate, commandeer, confiscate, preempt, usurp. These verbs mean to seize for oneself or as one's right: appropriated the family car; arrogated the chair at the head of the table; commandeered a plane for the escape; confiscating stolen property; preempted the glory for herself; usurped the throne.

“In the sense of usurpation” is hard-pressed to translate into a sense of ‘identical or substitute’

[David Koot]

Usurp: seize something without right: to use something without the right to do so

Thesaurus --- otherwise known as

jasd 12:12 SYNONYMS appropriate, arrogate, commandeer, confiscate, preempt, usurp. These verbs mean to seize for oneself or as one's right: appropriated the family car; arrogated the chair at the head of the table; commandeered a plane for the escape; confiscating stolen property; preempted the glory for herself; usurped the throne.

“In the sense of usurpation” is hard-pressed to translate into a sense of ‘identical or substitute’

Not at all. The papacy usurped, seized something without right, arrogated to itself the powers of God, as being a substitute Christ, Christ in the flesh. That is how Paul describes the man of sin in 2 Thess.

[jasd]

>>Not at all. The papacy usurped, seized something without right, arrogated to itself the powers of God, as being a substitute Christ, Christ in the flesh.<<

“Thems that says…”

The Kingdom was taken and given to an ethnos bearing the fruits thereof. For 1500 years there existed (excepting those very tiny minorities who could do nothing but survive and not, per se, ‘bearing the fruits’ of the Kingdom) only the one church, warts and all, that bore the fruits of Xtiandom – rightly or wrongly, as perceived – schisms aside.

Notice: “given”.

“substitute Christ, Christ in the flesh”: that would be in persona Christi, which is required for all followers of Jesus Christ.

>>That is how Paul describes the man of sin in 2 Thess.<<

Okay, Antichrist as morphology

That still does not validate a contrarian reading of Louw-Nida’s “againstness”.

[David Koot]

Louw-Nida does not use 'againstness.' Once again, L-W's semantic domain for this occurrence of the word is as follows:

"one who is opposed to Christ, in the sense of usurping the role of Christ" The L-W article goes on to discuss a broader 'pop' meaning of the English word, but that is not on point to the 1 Jn. 2:18 and 22 occurrences.

[John317]

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. ...Dave

Fantastic job, Dave.

I would only like to add a few points:

1) The Catholic Church has changed its public image as far as the reason it gives for the change of the Sabbath is concerned. Its publications in the past 20 or so years sound more like Protestant explanations when it comes to the reasons for keeping Sunday in place of the Sabbath. They very seldom refer to the influence of the Pope or of the Catholic Church with regard to the change from Sabbath to Sunday, although its scholars readily admit it. The late Pope John Paul II wrote an encyclical, for instance, in which he spoke of Sunday as a day which the early church kept in honor of Christ's resurrection.

2) It is true that the word "name" as used in Rev. 13: 17 also may carry the meaning of title or characteristic. For instance, when Jesus says in John 17: 6 that he has manifested God's name, Jesus is not saying He told people how to pronounce a word (contrary to the "Jehovah's Witness's" view of it). Rather, as the Amplified Version reads, "I have revealed Your very Self, Your real Self," i.e., His character, or what God is really like. So in Rev. 13: 17, the name doubtless describes something of the essential character of the Sea Beast. (Also compare Exodus 3: 14, 15; 36: 5,6, where "name" refers to God's characteristics, such as self-existence, mercy, grace, patience, etc.)

At Phil. 2: 9, 10, "name" has the connotation of title.

3) If you have access to it, see Roy Allen Anderson's book, Unveiling Daniel and Revelation, pp. 299 to 306 where he offers some of the best evidence anyone has ever put together regarding the meaning of the number 666.

4) Jacques B. Doukhan, a Christian Jew, Hebrew scholar, and author of Secrets of Revelation, The Apocalypse Through Hebrew Eyes, views 666 as a symbol of a power that seeks to replace divine perfection with human imperfection. He points out that man was created on the sixth day, and that 6 is a key number in the statue that King Nebuchadnezzar set up for all the people in his kingdom to bow down to.

Doukhan writes, "By naming this power 666, the Apocalypse reveals the true nature of the sea beast. Behind its mark of religiosity lurks the all-too-human aspiration for power. God is of no concern to the church. It is all a political game. Ever since Constantine and Clovis the church has lusted after political power."

Based on everything the book of Revelation says about the sea beast, Doukhan concludes that the power referred to can be none other than the Vatican, which he notes played in recent times an important role along with the US in the fall of Marxism.

[jasd]

>>Louw-Nida does not use 'againstness.' Once again, L-W's semantic domain for this occurrence of the word is as follows:

"one who is opposed to Christ, in the sense of...<< [ed.jasd]

Anti, 'against'. Anti, 'in place of', 'identical', or 'another synonym'. These are the two terms in view and under discussion. You utilized 53.83 ... in the sense of ....

Usurption is 'against' implicitly, explicitly, and by "sense of". If we speak in terms of "sense of" as you've done... then Louw-Nida uses "againstness" in the sense of (note your appeal to 53.83).

If one prefers to use Louw-Nida more loosely than perhaps it ought to be used -- then one might construe 53.83 to imply a sense of substitution, as in the substitute Christ.

That said, that would not be a valid application.

[John317]

There is really no dispute here. The fact is that the word "anti" means primarly "in place of," and secondarily "against" or "in opposition to." The Catholic church itself acknowledges this fact in all of its Bible commentaries and writings on the subject. Catholic scholars are some of the best translators of the Greek text and produced probably the most faithful translation of the critical text in the New American Bible.

[David Koot]

Anti, 'against'. Anti, 'in place of', 'identical', or 'another synonym'.

[John317]

>>Not at all. The papacy usurped, seized something without right, arrogated to itself the powers of God, as being a substitute Christ, Christ in the flesh.

?Thems that says??

The Kingdom was taken and given to an ethnos bearing the fruits thereof. For 1500 years there existed (excepting those very tiny minorities who could do nothing but survive and not, per se, ?bearing the fruits? of the Kingdom) only the one church, warts and all, that bore the fruits of Xtiandom ? rightly or wrongly, as perceived ? schisms aside...

Perhaps you have read a lot of good material on the history of the Christian chuch, but in any case, please let me suggest that you read The History of Protestantism by James A. Wylie, which you can access online. Also see Foxes Book of Martyrs; Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; The Age of Faith by Will Durante; and Ellen White's The Great Controversy. This last title you may also access online by going to EllenGWhite.org/ Read the first seven chapters.

[jasd]

>>The fact is that the word "anti" means primarly "in place of," and secondarily "against" or "in opposition to."<< [ed.jasd]

If you did not intentionally juxtapose the above, then, there is dispute – though, good-natured, of course

I provided the lexical denotations, which, for some reason or t’other (I suspect .Org predisposition) has been ignored.

The above in quotes is a reversal of fact.

>>The Catholic church itself acknowledges this fact in all of its Bible commentaries and writings on the subject. Catholic scholars are some of the best translators of the Greek text and produced probably the most faithful translation of the critical text in the New American Bible.<,

It is cause for some wonderment how selectively Catholic ‘writings’ are applied/appeal-to. Moreover, lest we forget,

the books of the NTestament canon deemed worthy to be incorporated were selected by them. It other words, that would be almost the entirety of the Protesting .org’s resource material.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Anti, 'against'. Anti, 'in place of', 'identical', or 'another synonym'.

>>Are you referring to the English word here, or to the Greek word?<<

Both, its etymology derives from the Greek.

>>That is the semantic domain which L-W has assigned to that occurrence of the word. Do you disagree with their decision? If so, on what basis?<<

It is yourself who appears to be disagreeing: I ask, “upon what grounds?”

>>'Usurpation' is 'against' by doing what? What does one who usurps do 'against' the person as to whom s/he is usurping?<<

Let’s take a for instance…, ‘he usurped the throne’, Where might one find indication, in any sense of its use, of anything resembling other than an againstness or opposition? Usurpation is an act of antagonism.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

If one prefers to use Louw-Nida more loosely than perhaps it ought to be used -- then one might construe 53.83 to imply a sense of substitution, as in the substitute Christ.

>>Since L-N places the occurrence in 53.83, are you disputing them on that point? If so, on what basis?<<

Umm, given Louw-Nida’s “one who is opposed to Christ, in the sense of usurping the role of Christ…”, I ask: how can it be construed to read other than as I’ve proposed? It is implicitly, explicitly, and in the sense of –againstness/oppositional.

To advance a ‘sense-of’ reading of “in place of” in the above argues that it matters not whether one uses Strong’s, Thayer’s, or Louw-Nida. Besides,

this exercise is moot as the Pope has continually subordinated the papacy to the acknowledgement that it is Jesus Christ who is the Redeemer, Saviour, and Gd.

[David Koot]

I provided the lexical denotations, which, for some reason or t’other (I suspect .Org predisposition) has been ignored.

The above in quotes is a reversal of fact.

The only reference I saw was to a L-W semantic domain, which I had quoted previously. Not sure what you mean by 'lexical denotation.' Please cite them in full here, with content. Thanks

Dave

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

The Kingdom was taken and given to an ethnos bearing the fruits thereof. For 1500 years there existed (excepting those very tiny minorities who could do nothing but survive and not, per se, ?bearing the fruits? of the Kingdom) only the one church, warts and all, that bore the fruits of Xtiandom ? rightly or wrongly, as perceived ? schisms aside...

>>Perhaps you have read a lot of good material on the history of the Christian chuch, but in any case, please let me suggest that you read The History of Protestantism by James A. Wylie, which you can access online. Also see Foxes Book of Martyrs; Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; The Age of Faith by Will Durante; and Ellen White's The Great Controversy. This last title you may also access online by going to EllenGWhite.org/ Read the first seven chapters.<<

I’ve not read this particular book on the History of Protestantism; however, I’ve read sufficient others (Who remarked, after having Seretus burned alive at the stake? “He showed the dumb stupidity of a beast . . . He went on bellowing . . . in the Spanish fashion: "Misericordias!”).

Own and read Foxe’s book (disturbing and continuing)

Read Gibbons: 50 million? (didn’t know they had census takers then – anyway, International Communism boasts of over 100,000,000 killed during only several decades of the 20th century. Who created Bolshevism and International Communism? Any Xtians amongst those 100,000,000?).

Purchased the entire The Story of Civilization. Great teamwork.

And have also the 4-volume set of EGW (My mother was very taken with EGW). Though having serious questions regarding their validity, I found her work very lyrical.

Thanks, for the list.

[jasd]

>>Please cite them in full here, with content. Thanks<<

Thanks, yourself, Dave -- but no thanks.

I grow tired of chewing on this particular ear.

[John317]

Quote:

Quote:jasd...

Purchased the entire The Story of Civilization. Great teamwork.

Totally agree with you. Have you read their book about their collaberation and life together? I was surprised to learn that he went sometimes to see Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the former SDA doctor who had been so close to Ellen White. Anyway, read what he/she writes about the Catholic church and how it arose out of the Roman Empire.

Hey it's ok to have serious quetions like you have. Sounds like you are just sorta starting to search and study. Don't give up. Keep seeking and asking questions.