Revelation 13: Name and Number

[jasd]

>>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.<<

Coupla years on Volunteer Online Adventist Forum and 2-3(?) years here. Have done a lot of sniffing, some chewing, and a

bit of swallowing.

I try to stay away from simply regurgitating. Practically everything I submit is researched by moi hisse'f. Some things I try to share... some things I submit attempting to elicit input... some things are pointless to share...

[David Koot]

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

[David Koot]

Now, we close in a bit further on the seven-headed beast. The hounds have it at bay, and as we approach at the gallop, we see the hideous monster, its back to a wall, the dogs harrying it. Time to close in for the kill. Drawing the great two-edged sword, we raise the gleaming steel and move in for the coup de main . . .

The question now has been narrowed down quite a bit. At issue in the final days is one of the names or titles of the beast. The name/title is blasphemous, and its numerical value is 666. We are called upon in Scripture to calculate that numerical value. Let us take a still closer look at the possibilities. Note that the name or title at issue pertains to the BEAST--the religiopolitical entity. NOT merely pertaining to the religious aspects, but to the political power. It is that power which is at issue in Rev. 13--the power to compel compliance by resort to the police power.

The temporal power of the papacy originated in the grant of governing authority and sovereignty by the emperor Constantine in the 330's A.D. That grant of power was cited by the papacy as the basis for its arrogating to itself, authority over the other Christian bishops. Indeed, that grant of power was relied upon by the papacy in exalting itself as 'definer of doctrine and corrector of heretics.' THAT power to persecute is what is specially at issue in Rev. 13, initially as the first beast, then as the second beast forms an image of the power of the first beast.

We might look, therefore, at a title CLAIMED by the papacy in support of its arrogation of temporal power. This title would be blasphemous on its face, as well. And, if there is a match-up, the numerical value of this title would be 666. In making that calculation, we would logically use the language of the papacy.

So, then, what title was claimed by the church in support of this extraordinary assumption of power and authority--authority that supplanted that of God? Are the participants on this forum aware of the extent of those claims of authority? Permit me to post here an excerpt which surveys them:

"“[T]he pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God . . . The pope alone is deservedly called by the name ‘most holy,’ because he alone is the vicar of Christ . . . ‘He is likewise the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings’ . . . Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions . . . Moreover the superiority and the power of the Roman Pontiff by no means pertain only to heavenly things, but to earthly things, and to Things under the earth, but are even over angels, than whom he is greater . . . So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the pope . . . For he is of so great dignity and power that he forms one and the same tribunal with Christ . . . The pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been intrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom . . .”

(Translated from Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, article “Papa,” II, Vol. VI, pp. 26-29)

I submit that, on their face, those claims are blasphemous. I wish to point out that this statement, and this publication received the endorsement of the papacy, and was written under color of authority of the papacy.

Such a title has been claimed by the papacy, and has been devised and proffered by the papacy as proof of its authority and temporal power--the power to persecute. This title was asserted during the time of the papacy's temporal power. After the deadly wound, and the loss of its power, the papacy soft-pedaled some of its previous claims--but has not withdrawn them. So, we look to the beast during the time it had power upon the earth, for the evidence of the damning title.

Dave

[jasd]

I was going to address this matter no further -- except that, purportedly excerpted from Writ is an interpretive elasticity that is wholly unsupported by text; that is, identifiers that bear upon “antichrist” are misapplied.

>>It appears to me that there may be a misunderstanding of sorts here. Since the question has to do with a dictionary definition, and it has been suggested that both John317 and myself are not following that definition, I am going to post it once more, and make an attempt to explain the meaning of the words as I understand them:

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

This is exactly what both John317 and I have been saying all along.<<

Okay. Sorry, I missed the dogleg that seemed to have abandoned lexical definitions per Louw-Nida to pejoratively assign application and charges.

>>…the papacy has opposed Christ by usurping the role of Christ. It matters not a whit if the papacy gives lip service to the Lordship of Jesus Christ or, to use your words, "the Pope has continually subordinated the papacy to the acknowledgement that it is Jesus Christ who is the Redeemer, Saviour, and Gd." The claim to be 'alter Christus,' the claim of the pope to be the 'substitute Son of God,' (VFD) Christ in the flesh, no longer a sinful child of Adam, is blasphemous on its face and a direct fulfillment of Paul's warning in 2 Thess. 2:4:<<

So, one removes a step further by morphing ‘the son of perdition’ with that of St John’s antichrist. What next? …inclusively, ‘the lawless one’, and ‘the man of sin’ are also antichrist?

I take your meaning by your tone; that said, how does the Universal church, itself, intend such terms and statements be understood? The question obtains in that the RCC originated those said terms and statements to set forth and/or facilitate doctrinal understanding among its adherents. That should surely indicate that the RCC best explain their meaning. It may be that there are valid and Biblical reasons for their points of doctrine, yes? and that one, disseminating unwarranted depreciatives – errs.

>>That is opposing by supplanting.<<

As I said, we were discussing lexical definitions and not application. Presupposing the Pope to be Antichrist may be more dogmatically elastic or ipse dixit -- than is doctrinally defensible.

>>Outside of that, a person may indeed have his or her own opinions.<<

Attested to by over 30,000 Protesting .orgs

>>At issue in this post is the clarification of a particular dictionary definition.<<

Indeed; however, you seem to have been precipitously alluding to charges [against the papacy] irrespective of dialogue – thus confusing the issue.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

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:David Koot

Exactly. Usurpation is prima facie an act of antagonism. That is precisely the point. And it matters not a peppercorn if the usurper makes protestations of the sovereignty of the monarch he has thusly opposed.

Exposition! please… whits and peppercorns aside, St John set forth the criteria that he is the antichrist – “who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is an antichrist” and -- “confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

…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.

>>It is not the words one speaks that are so significant as the actions and the claims of authority. When the Church claims, "the Church is above the Bible," that is defiance of the authority of God. And, indeed, since the Council of Trent, Church tradition trumps Scripture. That is the teaching of the Church, and that teaching has not changed in the latest catechism--smooth-sounding words notwithstanding.<<

“Antichrist” must meet every criteria set forth by the Apostle – not piecemealed. The Apostle does not exhort ascribing this or that intent to the person – but warns as to what is said by the person – deceivableness aside.

[David Koot]

.an interpretive elasticity that is wholly unsupported by text; that is, identifiers that bear upon “antichrist” are misapplied.

[David Koot]

Taking a look at the pope's 'names' . . .

"The Pope's titles include: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, and Servant of the Servants of God." (Wikipedia) The article goes on to make note of former titles of the pope, which include: Patriarch of the West and Vicar of the Apostolic See. One title which is conspicuously missing from the list is that used during the temporal reign of the popes: Vicarius Filii Dei.

Surveying these several titles, we see that most of them would not be considered as 'blasphemous.' Supreme Pontiff, Primate of Italy, Archbishop, Sovereign of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God, Patriarch of the West, Vicar of Apostolic See, all are descriptive of claims and powers. But, none of these could be considered as 'blasphemous.' However, there are two titles which on their face could be described as blasphemous. One is 'Vicarius Christi.' The other is 'Vicarius Filii Dei.' Both say, in essence, the same thing. 'Substitute Christ' ('Alter Christus') and 'Substitute Son of God.' Both acknowledge the claim of the popes, made during the centuries of papal power, to be Christ in the flesh. It is that claim that is blasphemous. Herr Cardinal Ratzinger did an excellent job of changing the language of the catechism (which bears his name as "imprimi potest" on the copyright page) to soft-pedal many of the claims more boldly made in previous centuries. Still, however, on p. 234, Article 882,(1994 ed.) there appears this statement: "'For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, which he can always exercise unhindered." Incidentally, article 891 states that "The Roman POntiff . . . enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office . . ."--a reminder of the claim of papal infallibility.

Now, then, the title, 'Vicarius Christi' appears to pertain to the pope's role as head of the Church. The Church is depicted as the woman, Babylon, seated upon the beast in Rev. ch. 17. The pope also, however, is the head of the beast. The woman and the beast together form the religiopolitical entity known as the 'papacy.' It was the beast that received the deadly wound, not the woman. It was the temporal power of the papacy that was temporarily removed, but is in the process of being restored.

The pope's supremacy as head of the beast--the religiopolitical entity--was described by the other blasphemous title: Vicarius Filii Dei. That title was used during the centuries of papal supremacy, as authority for the papacy's temporal power. That is where we should look for the clues found in Rev. 13. Oh, by the way, the notion of trying to find that title on the pope's 'miter' is a red herring, I believe. It would seem to make about as much sense as having to see the mark of the beast stamped on someone's forehead. Of far greater significance is the fact that the title does describe the blasphemous claims of the papacy, and the papacy's reliance on it during the centuries of her ascendancy. (And Rome's motives have not changed. Her goal is still world domination--hegemony, with the powers of the Earth doing her bidding.)

Dave

[bevin]

Quote:

That title was used during the centuries of papal supremacy, as authority for the papacy's temporal power.

It was not, and you know it was not, used even infrequently as the title of the pope. After 150 years of searching the SDA have only found it in

(a) The Donation of Constantine - a forgery, but a convenient one that that RC did use to justify a power grab

( Quotations from the Donation, when it is not the point of the quotation, nor affirmed by the quotation

© An article in the RC equivalent of "Our Little Friend".

What a huge lead-up you have given to a repeat of something the SDA church has long acknowledged to be somewhere wrong.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

a convenient one that that RC did use to justify a power grab

Precisely. And, I should add, a title created by the Church, and one which reflected the pope's claim to be Christ in the flesh.

[David Koot]

What a huge lead-up you have given

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote: jasd

.an interpretive elasticity that is wholly unsupported by text; that is, identifiers that bear upon “antichrist” are misapplied.

>>That is quite a statement to make. Let's see what evidence you present in support of the charge.<<

It is not necessary that I provide “evidence”. I repeat, again, that St John provided the careful reader the identifying markers that define(s) Antichrist(s). As far as elasticity…, the “evidence” is contained within your posts. Rather than, imho, Writ ruling exegesis, there is “evidence” that some few of your posts are indulging in personal biases and seminar indoctrination as regards antichrist.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

So, one removes a step further by morphing ‘the son of perdition’ with that of St John’s antichrist. What next? …inclusively, ‘the lawless one’, and ‘the man of sin’ are also antichrist?

>>This, then, is a question, rather than evidence.<<

“Evidence”? Construe it in any manner that suits you. (per questions: how many 'questions' did Gd inquire of Job?)

Quote:

Quote:jasd

That should surely indicate that the RCC best explain their meaning.

>>Rubbish. One may as well ask a thief how to secure one's houe against being burgled. Self-interest may rule.<<

“Self-interest may rule.” Sometimes, the qualifier may rule.

I think the proverb, “Straight from the horse’s mouth” obtains. One ought to weigh all input with discernment rather than presupposing.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Presupposing the Pope to be Antichrist may be more dogmatically elastic or ipse dixit -- than is doctrinally defensible.

>>That is a statement of opinion, as is the 'presupposing' assumption. On what basis Scripturally or textually do you make such a statement?<<

Good Grief, read the forwards of the Apostle John. It is absolutely impossible that the Popes have been Antichrist. Mebbe, an argument may be made that ‘man of sin’, ‘son of perdition’, ‘the lawless one’, etc – may be logically taken to that denouement…, never Antichrist per Writ – unless one (present or yet to come) denounces Jesus is the Christ and He, being Gd, came in the flesh.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

St John set forth the criteria that he is the antichrist – “who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is an antichrist” and -- “confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”.

>>John referred to 'antichrists' plural. His definition was not exclusive. ALL antichrists do not necessarily, by his terms, have to fall within his description.<<

Did you not introduce “opinion” into this discussion? Is that how you characterize St John’s writings? shoulda, coulda, woulda, kinda, sorta…?

>>Paul also describes the coming of an antichrist, with a different MO than the situation John described, and a different time frame.<<

That is the sort of morphology that one who exposits should take issue. The indentifiers for Antichrist are uniquely St John’s.

>>You have not shown that every antichrist which may ever arise MUST fit John's description.<<

I don’t have to. A straightforward reading and the precision of the Apostle's writing precludes my necessity of having to go over these passages again and again, and again.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

“Antichrist” must meet every criteria set forth by the Apostle

>>Which antichrist? Which apostle? And why?<<

My word! you do go on… with ‘the equivocate’! “Antichrist”: that denieth; confess not.

Apostle is still in view…, there is no grammatical necessity for reiteration upon this point.

Why? That all deceivableness might be forestalled, that’s why.

[John317]

"Ephraim is joined fast to idols, so let him alone [to take the consequences]." Hosea 4: 17.

[jasd]

Oh my! so cryptic. The Pope is Ephraim?

Moi!? oy vay...

Stay cool, no harm, no foul.

[David Koot]

St John provided the careful reader the identifying markers that define(s) Antichrist(s).

[jasd]

Am on the go...; will respond -- mebbe -- tomorrow.

In the meantime, please reread my post(s).

[David Koot]

I already reread it several times,and have responded accordingly.

[Gerr]

>>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.

And who lays claim to be the Vicar, the substitute of Christ? The Vicar of the Son of God? The Vicar of God?

Gerry

[John317]

Oh my! so cryptic. The Pope is Ephraim?

Moi!? oy vay...

Stay cool, no harm, no foul.

"Ephraim is joined fast to idols, so let him alone [to take the consequences]." Hosea 4: 17.

The verse has to do with those who want their idols and false doctrines and sins. God presents the evidence of the truth but he does not force us to decide one way or the other.

Consider two things:

1) No matter who you believe the sea beast is or who Babylon is, it is obvious from reading Revelation that almost the whole world will be on the wrong side of the issue and will be lost, despite God having given them plenty of warning through the messages of the three angels of Rev. 14 and the fourth angel of Rev. 18: 1,2. The call is given to come out of Babylon so that people will not receive the plagues, but very few accept the warning. They will be like Ephraim joined to his idols and God will have to give them up. They reap the dire consequences described in Rev. 14: 9-11 and 19: 17, 18.

2) These-- "all who dwell on the earth"-- are contrasted with "the remnant of the woman's seed" who keep all of God's commandments and the faith of Jesus and have the testimony of Jesus Christ, which is the Spirit of Prophecy.

Rev. 12: 17; 14: 12; 19: 10.

[jasd]

>>And who lays claim to be the Vicar, the substitute of Christ? The Vicar of the Son of God? The Vicar of God?<<

Perhaps, it is that some few, intentionally or unintentionally, hold and disseminate a pejorative aspect of “substitute”. It may be that someone who is a substitute is to be commended – rather than censured.

Try this from Wikipedia:

“Vicarius is a Latin word, meaning substitute or deputy. It is the root and origin of the English word "vicar."

Originally, in ancient Rome, this was an equivalent to the English vice- (as in "deputy"), used as part of the title of various officials. Each vicarius was assigned to a specific superior official, after whom his full title was generally completed by a genitive (e.g. Vicarius Praetoris).”

Vicarius Filii Dei

Umm, where is the genitive in the immediate above?

[David Koot]

Vicarius Filii Dei

Umm, where is the genitive in the immediate above?

Filii Dei

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:John317

"Ephraim is joined fast to idols, so let him alone [to take the consequences]." Hosea 4: 17.

The verse has to do with those who want their idols and false doctrines and sins. God presents the evidence of the truth but he does not force us to decide one way or the other.

…am aware of the text and how it’s been, too often, applied. Its application seems to share the same questionable impulses that give rise to “wolves in sheep’s clothing – innuendoes: that sort of thing that causes gravitas to float.

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that we’re on a forum rather than in a .org convocation determining dogmas and doctrine…

>>…to come out of Babylon…<<

And. who/what is this – Babylon?

>>…the testimony of Jesus Christ, which is the Spirit of Prophecy.<<

And, who/what is this “Spirit of [P]rophecy”?.

[jasd]

>>Filii Dei<<

Right, so. Emphasis on 'genitive'.

[David Koot]

>>Filii Dei<<

Right, so. Emphasis on 'genitive'.

The genitive is used to describe Christ's relationship with the Father: ho huios tou theou

KIM that some of the articles on the pope/Catholic church may well have been written by Catholics or pro-Catholics. Wikipedia is often a good starting place, with links to more authoritative sources, as Bevin pointed out. But there is a definite slant to some articles in it. It is not consistently objective. Here is a more objective source, the WEbster's Unabridged definition of 'vicar':

"4. a person who acts in place of another; substitute.

5. a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy: God's vicar on earth."

And there's the rub: the pope's claim of authority to perform the functions of God on earth. Blasphemy on its face.

Dave

[John317]

Quote:

Quote:John317

"Ephraim is joined fast to idols, so let him alone [to take the consequences]." Hosea 4: 17.

The verse has to do with those who want their idols and false doctrines and sins. God presents the evidence of the truth but he does not force us to decide one way or the other.

?

( 1) Just before Christ returns and before the seven last plagues fall, God sends a special message to the world calling people to disconnect themselves from the false religions. Babylon consists of false religions and false, or fallen churches; they are false because they do not teach the truth but teach false doctrines with which they mislead the world. Thus they are fallen away from the truth, no longer reflecting God's will.

(2) The Spirit of Prophecy includes all the true prophets of the Bible as well as the prophet or prophets that God sends to His church before the Second Coming. Therefore, we can say with certainty that the Bible is pointing out a group of people living just before Christ returns who (a) keep all the commandments of God, including the 4th commandment; ( have the faith of or about Jesus; and © hold to the testimony of Jesus, the Spirit of Prophecy. In other words, into their midst God has sent the gift of prophecy. [Notice that the Bible makes a connection between keeping God's law and having the gift of prophecy. According to history, the church ceased to have prophets about the time it ceased to keep the law of God. Therefore, it would make sense that as the law of God is again kept, God would restore the gift of prophecy.]

It can be shown that this group of commandment keeping people came on the scene of history shortly after 1798 or about the time that the sea beast of Rev. 13 was going into captivity or recieving its deadly wound.

If you would like to see how we can know these things, please ask me and I will be glad to show you from the Scriptures how. We will take it one step at a time.

But first please tell me how you believe the Bible answers the questons you've posed.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

St John provided the careful reader the identifying markers that define(s) Antichrist(s).

Quote:David Koot

John mentions 'antichrists' four times. The description differs:

To be more precise: St John mentions the singular antichrist four times and once the plural antichrists.

>>1) v. 18--"even now there are many antichrists" He is speaking in present tense here. He does not give a definition for every antichrist. Nor does he say that more antichrists will not come in the future.<<

1 Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

The Apostle goes on to state that “they went out from us” (1 John 2:19)

>.2) v. 22--"a liar . . . denies that Jesus is the Christ. He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son." (a) Someone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is a liar. ( If someone denies the Father and the Son, he is antichrist. © This definition is not exclusive. No words are used here which could be construed as exclusive, or that would rule out other manifestations of an antichrist. John here says that IF someone denies the Father and the Son, he is an antichrist. He does not, however, say that EVERY antichrist MUST take that particular form.<<

He states that “He is antichrist who denieth the Father and the Son”

>>3) ch. 4:3--"Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist." Thus, the denial that Jesus came in the flesh is not of God, but is the spirit of the antichrist. John does not here say that this is the ONLY manifestation of the spirit of the antichrist. Nor does he say that so long as a 'spirit' confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, the spirit may say anything else, but is still of God, by that exclusive statement.<<

He further states that “Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of Gd: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist,”

>>4) 2 Jn. v. 7--"For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." John describes "an antichrist." Nowhere does he use language of exclusivity, that EVERY antichrist MUST take that form.<<

Still revelatorily expositing, He states, “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”

>>In summary, John says that antichrists will come, and that many antichrists have already come. He describes the teachings of some 'antichrists' that have already come, in his day. He does not state a rigid definition of EVERY antichrist who will EVER come. He does not state that so long as a 'spirit' confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, that anything else the 'spirit' teaches MUST be from God. He does give ONE identifying marker, but nowhere states that to be the ONLY identifying marker.<<

What St John does state is:

/ They went out from us

/ He is antichrist who denieth the Father and the Son”

/ Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of Gd: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist,

/ For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Summing: “He who denieth”, “confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”, and per your seeming proposal as well that of St John… “deceives”. The Antichrist (the articled Antichrist per certain .Org’s assertions) must meet, inclusively, the above criteria. Without laying to the Pope charges (that cannot be ascertained or substantiated) of the heart (“the heart is deceitful…” notwithstanding), it is indisputable that he did not “go out from us”; did not nor does not deny “the Son”; and rather, “confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”. Matter of fact,

his sacrament of the communion excels in testimony -- that of Protestors.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

some few of your posts are indulging in personal biases and seminar indoctrination as regards antichrist.

>>That you wouldn't know.<<

Perhaps, my quote ought to have included that which was excised.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

‘the lawless one’, and ‘the man of sin’ are also antichrist?

>>One thing is for sure. John does not give a complete, comprehensive definiton of every possible manifestation of the 'spirit of antichrist.' No language appears in his writings which would support such a position.<<

Perhaps not, and even were that so -- that would still not permit the supposition that the Antichrist is also ‘the lawless one’, ‘the man of sin’, the ‘son of perdition’ – or that it has been or is now the Pope. It may be possible that the criteria provided by the Apostle

leads elsewhere than to Vatican City.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

One ought to weigh all input with discernment rather than presupposing.

>>To suppose that another student is 'presupposing' may itself be 'presupposing.'<<

Likely. That said, “A man’s work precedes him.”

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Presupposing the Pope to be Antichrist

>>How would you know it to be 'presupposing' or not?<<

Here is the entire quote: “As I said, we were discussing lexical definitions and not application. Presupposing the Pope to be Antichrist may be more dogmatically elastic or ipse dixit -- than is doctrinally defensible.”

“A man’s work precedes him.”

Quote:

Quote:jasd

It is absolutely impossible that the Popes have been Antichrist.

>>Why? Because they say that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? That's it? Satan acknowledges that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. And James the apostle says that the devils believe. Are satan and his demons, therefore, not the spirit of antichrist?<<

Writ provided us the means and the many avenues by which you might determine Satan and his demons. St John the Apostle revealed for us – the markers by which [the] Antichrist(s) may be identified – should one desire exactness in exposition.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

never Antichrist per Writ – unless one (present or yet to come) denounces Jesus is the Christ and He, being Gd, came in the flesh.

>.Once again, you appear to be making John's descriptive statement exclusive.<<

Exclusive? Other terminologies proposed notwithstanding, who else has provided the markers for that which we are certain is/are [the] antichrist(s)? Explicit and exclusive.

>>But there is no textual warrant for doing so.<<

Begging your pardon…!?

>>John describes a manifestation of 'the spirit of antichrist' but nowhere states that to be the ONLY manifestation of that spirit.<<

Those descriptives, which he did apprise us of, being Cardinal, suffice.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

being Gd

>>John does not state that.<<

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Mebbe, an argument may be made that ‘man of sin’, ‘son of perdition’, ‘the lawless one’, etc – may be logically taken to that denouement…, never Antichrist per Writ – unless one (present or yet to come) denounces Jesus is the Christ and His, being Gd, came in the flesh. [ed.jasd]

I, extemporizing, said that: …no direct quote in the above.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

St John set forth the criteria that he is the antichrist

>>John set forth a criterion.<<

This statement controverts Writ. (review above)

>>He does not say that is the only criterion.<<

(review above)

>>He nowhere uses language of exclusivity.<<

Explicit language suffices. According to St John, those characteristics set forth are identifiers; otherwise, he was simply writing uselessly -- the question of inspiration obtaining.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

The indentifiers for Antichrist are uniquely St John’s.

>>John gives an identifier.<<

(review above)

>>He does not state that to be the only identifier.<<

As I have stated...

>.Nor have you made a case that ANY identifiers are "uniquely" his.<<

Whose else, then?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I don’t have to. A straightforward reading and the precision of the Apostle's writing

>>Such a reading says that John warns of many antichrists,<<

Ahh, you’ve said it; however, sequentially? or en masse?

>>…and gives one way to tell if a teaching is the 'spirit of antichrist.'<<

"one way"! Say what? Who else provides us with a text that indisputably correlates to [the] Antichrist(s)?

>>His writings clearly state that marker.<<

That marker? Okay, ...and additionally.

>>They do not address the possibility of other markers. John does not use exclusive language.<<

There is no incontrovertibly corresponding text elsewhere, ipso facto – St John is using exclusive language.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

there is no grammatical necessity for reiteration upon this point.

>>Grammatically, there is no language in any of John's letters that would indicate an exclusive, comprehensive test for EVERY antichrist that may appear. He does give ONE test, but does not state that it is the ONLY test.<<

The Apostle wrote what he wrote -- explicitly and exclusively. Disagreeing, please provide [the] unequivocal text(s) elsewhere to substantiate the non-exclusivity of St John’s language.

[David Koot]

To be more precise: St John mentions the singular antichrist four times and once the plural antichrists.