Revelation 13: Name and Number

[jasd]

>>None of these verses give an exclusive definition of "THE" antichrist. Only that those who say or do certain things are antichrists or of the spirit of antichrist. Different emphasis.<<

Leaving aside the ‘possibles’ and the ‘does nots’…,

what they do is provide you or I the identifiers that indeed mark antichrist(s); rather, than inviting interjecting recipe or formula.

>>“THE” antichrist<<

We come full circle. Pope as “THE” Antichrist is a conjecture of elasticity, prejudice, and opinion, to wit…

Quote:

Quote:David Koot

There are others, which may be adduced by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

a matter of possibles or adduceables -- they being of certain privacy.

Repeating: antichrist is uniquely St John’s.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

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

>>The church of Rome, under the leadership of the bishop of Rome, lead the way in apostasy, and later acquired the power of the State to compel the other churches to do so. Most assuredly, they "went out from among us."<<

When might those that “went out from us” – “went”? that would have, assuredly, been before the writing of the epistles 1, 2, and 3, yes? mebbe even before the ‘asserted’ “apostasy” of your quote?

A margin note: Gd drew Abram from pagans, did He not? but impossible that He should reprise Himself with Rome? did Gd, indeed not then, give the kingdom to an ethnos bearing the fruits thereof? (Matt 21:43)

When was it that the Kingdom is said to have been removed (Matt 21) and given to an ethnos… ? It is not suggested that there was other than Rome to have inherited Xtianity at the time, would it? Gnosticism? Doubtful. Mebbe, Gd held the Kingdom in escrow until the nineteenth century? don’t think so.

Stipulating that no one can condone, countenance, or otherwise excuse Rome’s excessiveness, it was only the entities, Eastern and Western, of Rome that developed and advanced Xtianity for those many centuries (millennium plus?) – there being none other to speak of…

Quote:

Quote:jasd

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

>>Someone who denies the FAther and the Son is an antichrist. But John does not here say that every antichrist, or every manifestation of the spirit of antichrist, will deny the Father and the Son. There could be other, different manifestations of the spirit of antichrist.<<

Indeed, however, it is an explicit criterion that identifies antichrist(s). That, naturally, excludes the Pope who confesses both Father and Son, as well the Holy Spirit in both his religious and profane duties.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

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.”

>>Same thing, once again. Many deceivers do not confess that Jesus Christ is come . . . Such a person is a deceiver and an antichrist. ANYONE who does not so confess is a deceiver and an antichrist. But John does not here say that EVERY deceiver and every antichrist will not make such a confession. John leaves the door open for other manifestations of the spirit of antichrist. [ed.jasd]<<

I’ve noticed the fixation upon controverting possibilities. Indeed, I stipulate that an antichrist may be tinker, tailor, soldier, spy, or other; Islamic, Communist, or Democrat (sorry, couldn’t resist) In other words,

antichrist might be secular or religious: but, [the] antichrist(s) does not, as one criterion establishes, confess Jesus Christ, Son of Gd.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

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

>>That is a statement of your opinion.<<

But of course.

>>John made no such statement.<<

Of course not, it is adduced text by text [/smile]

>>As for other indicators of an antichrist, that probably would call for a separate thread. This thread is specifically on the issue of "name and number" in Rev. 13.<<

Speaking of which…,

1 Kings 10:14 Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold, (666 talents of gold)

2 Chron 9:13 Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred and threescore and six talents of gold; (666 talents of gold)

Dan 3:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. (60 and 6 cubits of gold)

What was the image? Proportionately, it could not have that of a man – unless it was an image of a man upon a plinth. That, however, would be plinth and image. Besides,

why must one subscribe to “image” being that of beast or man? The text gives us height and breadth. What of a base? Was the base that of a column or was the base foursquare? Perhaps, it was a base foursquare having a measure of 150 cubits a side. Hmm, that would be an image of a pyramid, triangular, one of the basic forms. Given that base,

one arrives at 600 and 60 and 6 cubits. That would be awfully similar to the pictured pyramid with a flying disc atop (so prevalent in Egypt). Kinda like the obverse symbol on the American dollar.

Question: is the disc atop pictured pyramids stylized vertically that it might be understood? its true position being horizontal...?

And then there is Ezra 2:13 The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six.

Adonikam: ‘my lord arose’ or ‘lord of rising (i.e. high)’

The number of the Sun

in the arcane arts of alchemy, magick, astrology, Kabbalah, etc… is 666.

Umm, line upon line… precept upon precept… would seem to indicate the name ‘Gold’ -- or some extension upon it, rather than Pope, would it not?

Presentations currently given at seminars seem, rather, to favor adduceable construction

[David Koot]

I think at this juncture it is quite clear to this observer that there is a parting of the ways, and I see nothing to be accomplished by further discussion of the particular point of view which has been presented. As I mentioned in the previous post, I do not wish to get side-tracked on this issue here. This thread has to do with name and number. Some of the other issues which continue to be brought up here, may be clear to some, or not clear to others, but they are not properly the issue of this thread, and hence I will not speak to them further here. In the next post, I will move on to continue addressing the issues of name or title and number.

Dave

[jasd]

>>I think at this juncture it is quite clear to this observer that there is a parting of the ways, and I see nothing to be accomplished by further discussion of the particular point of view which has been presented.<<

Yes, I suppose so. I’ve noticed that you begin a number of threads that are not sustained by further effort on your part. Just an observation. No criticism implied.

>>As I mentioned in the previous post, I do not wish to get side-tracked on this issue here.<<

Perhaps, it is more convenient to label adversarial positions as side-tracking

>>This thread has to do with name and number.<<

In timely manner…, you’ll notice that the dialogue has reverted to the number if not the name -- exactly.

>>Some of the other issues which continue to be brought up here, may be clear to some, or not clear to others, but they are not properly the issue of this thread, and hence I will not speak to them further here.<<

Bully for you. I always admire the seemingly higher road taken.

>>In the next post, I will move on to continue addressing the issues of name or title and number.<<

I purposely endeavoured to address the issue of fever in the development of dogmas and doctrine. What I’ve attempted to present is

that your position is developed extraBiblically. I took lines and precepts from within Writ itself to develop a position that, though unwelcome, does not appeal entirely to the extraBiblical.

(Will you, likewise, be doing so?)

I should hope that the point was taken: that is, neither you nor I have a monopoly upon truths per se. I can think of a number of reasons why the position you take vis-à-vis the papacy is as unlikely as the one I proposed.

The difference is – that I’ve utilized Writ; whereas, your position has been without; a matter, which you’ve described in other venues – as opinion.

[David Koot]

What I’ve attempted to present is that your position is developed extraBiblically. I took lines and precepts from within Writ itself to develop a position that, though unwelcome, does not appeal entirely to the extraBiblical.

[there buster]

Quote:

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.

Since theis title was not available in the first century, to John's audience, then it is irrelevant to the meaning of 666. They cannot 'heed' what they cannot know. So 666 must have a meaning accessible to the first century audience. Whether John foresaw the title we do not know. We do know that his audience could not have. The key to understanding 666 must reside in the first century or earlier.

[jasd]

Quote:

Ouote:: jasd

What I’ve attempted to present is that your position is developed extraBiblically. I took lines and precepts from within Writ itself to develop a position that, though unwelcome, does not appeal entirely to the extraBiblical.

>>After careful review and consideration of the position you have taken on clues to help identify antichrists in 1 and 2 John, I have reached the conclusion that the position you have taken is not in harmony with the Scriptures cited in support of it.<<

David Koot, I have not presented clues. I have cited First and Second John.

>>While I do not feel that resort to the Greek is necessary on this question, I did consult it anyway, and the import of the passages is consistent in both Greek and the better English translations.<<

I’m curious as to the “better English translations”: they wouldn’t be based upon WH-ghostbusters translations would they?

>>He is not addressing other potential manifestations of that spirit, which might arise in the future.<<

Agreed; he did not address the potential manifestation of, as I’ve noted, a tinker or tailor of that spirit; however, what he did address – were markers that would identify and, ipso facto, contrarily, eliminate the constructed speculative.

>>He presents an identifying marker for the manifestation of that spirit in his day.<<

“in his day” opens up a can of worms. What else, then, of Writ -- was written only for his day? One might then question other passages of writ interpreted by the parameter of “in his/that day”.

>>That is not by its terms the only marker, so that every manifestation of that spirit must be described by it.<<

But it does hold within the terminology – that which eliminates the extraBiblical speculative – that the Pope, though he does not deny but rather confesses Jesus Christ and Him come in the flesh, is Antichrist. Holy Writ.

>>That is what the evidence of the passages, and of the rest of Scripture, indicates.<<

I’ve only forwarded that those certain markers were uniquely St John’s and per the term antichrist(s)..., exclusive (not having exclusivity). What I’ve done is to simply forward the ‘eliminating markers’ that have been wrongly applied to a specific subject.

>>But, once again, that is not properly the topic of this thread. Perhaps someone may wish to start a thread on that specific question. The scope of this thread is narrow--name and number.<<

Which scope is being addressed (though perhaps tangentially) as intrinsic to the matter.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

The difference is – that I’ve utilized Writ; whereas, your position has been without

>>Quite the contrary. The position I have presented is what is stated in Writ, as it reads.<<

That is the point upon which I’ve taken issue, that is, “as it reads”. ‘As it reads’ may be done so both subjectively and interpretively. …Read moi! Oy!

>>The position you have taken is neither stated in Writ, nor is it in harmony with Writ, as it reads.<<

Oh come now, David Koot. Your position is entirely whole cloth and extraBiblical, protestations to the contrary.

The error you seem to be building upon is categorically unBiblical in that it relies upon a ‘wresting’ of the book of Daniel per some certain Protestors (which in turn, thereafter is dependant upon Preterism) before ever they having ‘increase in knowledge’ and before they ever were able to run to and fro.

I submitted the post preceding this that I might measure your response. I was curious. Hey! if your intention was to essay a thesis of yours without hindrance – I’ll post elsewhere.

Let me know. No problema.

[David Koot]

I have not presented clues. I have cited First and Second John.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:David Koot

>>That is not by its terms the only marker, so that every manifestation of that spirit must be described by it.<<

Quote:jasd

But it does hold within the terminology – that which eliminates the extraBiblical speculative – that the Pope, though he does not deny but rather confesses Jesus Christ and Him come in the flesh, is Antichrist. Holy Writ.

>>By the terms of what John wrote, that does not eliminate the pope from being another manifefstation of the spirit of antichrist.<<

Umm, given the above as indicating the rationale of a true believer..., I'm letting go of this thing until we, perchance, might in common, find Writ to be not quite so circular as seemingly portrayed in the preceding

So, onward -- to 666, name, and mark! Holy Writ.

[David Koot]

Indeed. Although a careful reading of the verses would seem to resolve the question. Very simply, 1 Jn. 4:2 says that 'every spirit . . . is not from God, but [kai] is of {genitive} the antichrist.' That really does solve it. If a spirit does not acknowledge that the Messiah has come in the flesh, that spirit is OF (out of or from) the antichrist. This does NOT say, "IS the antichrist." It says, "OF or FROM the antichrist," Grammatically, textually, this DOES NOT state that EVERY manifestation of the antichrist will make such a denial. Instead, it says that every SPIRIT that so denies is OF the antichrist. There is a huge difference both grammatically and doctrinally.

At any rate, reviewing name and number . . . the case would seem to appear solid, based on the following facts:

1) The pope claims to be the substitute Son of God;

2) That claim is stated in his title, 'Substitute Son of God' (Vicarius Filii Dei);

3) That title is blasphemous;

4) The title was created by the Church;

5) The title was used by the Church to seize power;

6) The Church relied on the title to maintain and expand its power ((Gregory VII and Innocent III both referred to it in championing the Church's quest for world power)

7) It is the title of a man;

8) Its numerical value in the language of the Church, is 666.

I think that pretty well takes care of that issue. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum!

Cheers.

[jasd]

>>Very simply, 1 Jn. 4:2 says that 'every spirit . . . is not from God, but [kai] is of {genitive} the antichrist.'

Actually, 1 John 4:2 states: Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

(Hmm, would you look at that! “is of Gd”. Pope is of Gd? Ahhh, c’mon…!)

Followed, in contrast, by verse 3 (which you’ve advanced with ellipsis): And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,

One can only ponder upon the reason you excised the nexus of the dialogue… It seems to parallel your dwelling upon “manifestations” rather than to the plain word of Gd via His servant St John regarding the explicit ‘deny or confess’.

>>That really does solve it.<<

I suppose it might for some few; however, for the vast majority of Xtians (indeed, factually so) who attempt to be true to text, …don’t think so.

>>If a spirit does not acknowledge that the Messiah has come in the flesh, that spirit is OF (out of or from) the antichrist. This does NOT say, "IS the antichrist." It says, "OF or FROM the antichrist," Grammatically, textually, this DOES NOT state that EVERY manifestation of the antichrist will make such a denial. Instead, it says that every SPIRIT that so denies is OF the antichrist. There is a huge difference both grammatically and doctrinally.<<

Oh pettyfog. The dialogue centers upon whether the Pope is Antichrist or whether he is not. Read 1 John 4:2 in the above.

I’d thought to exit this sort of circularity; however, one cannot allow, without note, resolution be determined by simple assertion.

>>At any rate, reviewing name and number . . . the case would seem to appear solid, based on the following facts:<<

Say what?!

“1) The pope claims to be the substitute Son of God;

2) That claim is stated in his title, 'Substitute Son of God' (Vicarius Filii Dei);

3) That title is blasphemous;

4) The title was created by the Church;

5) The title was used by the Church to seize power;

6) The Church relied on the title to maintain and expand its power ((Gregory VII and Innocent III both referred to it in championing the Church's quest for world power)

7) It is the title of a man;

8) Its numerical value in the language of the Church, is 666.”

>>I think that pretty well takes care of that issue.<<

Yes, one might think so – provided s/he devolves to the most base pejorative meaning of words rather than to the meaning of a language that is culturally specific.

What the above litany lacks is another five allegations to form a disfigurative circle of 13, yes?. Sacré bleu!

(one might suspect that another 5 will yet manifest, eh?

I understand that you did not do the original research of the above that it might be yours… but instead, you’ve inherited it from works of ‘pioneers’ and others of like mind; that said, the above, with few exceptions, is a hyperventilate constructed to self-validate certain disciplines of thought.

2 Cor 2:10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I [forgive] also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes [forgave I it] in the person of Christ;

”in persona Christi” -- is that kinda, sorta like – vicarius?

>>Fiat justitia, ruat caelum!<<

quia falso ipsi prophetant … dicit Dominus

[Clio]

jasd - tu

I do so enjoy it when you write so clearly. I'm following along with interest!

Clio

[David Koot]

Actually, 1 John 4:2 states: Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God

[jasd]

Hiya! Clio

Am always delighted to read your posts, and was curious as to whether you have Summers where you live... if so, are they long enough to grow veggies? otherwise,

your son has to go into the wilderness to put a few bears and mooses (meese?) in the freezer, yes? 'cepting for what's in the stores?

I guess there's a certain knack to living away up there, eh? Will you still manage when you are no longer able to get a latte?

>>I'm following along with interest!<<

Thanks, for the underserved generosity.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Actually, 1 John 4:2 states: Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God

>>It has been my understanding that the above is one test, but not the only test.<<

That may be so; however, it is an exclusionary test.

>>For example: James tells us that the devils believe, and indeed acknowledge that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Does that mean they are of God?<<

Good point: however, Weymouth, or others notwithstanding, you don’t think you may be employing a gloss, building upon a casual similarity in meaning between confessing and acknowledging – mebbe, just a , eeny, little gloss?

>>Another example: A church, or a minister, teaches that the Law of God has been abolished, and that we are free to do whatever we want. The church/minister also confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Does that mean it/he is from God?<<

Whether one believes the “Law of God” has been “abolished”, or no, is a matter of exegesis – a matter of some subjectiveness, yes? Your example, however contrived or posed, would not disannul the plainly written test of St John’s.

>>A third example: A church or minister teaches that we can continue to sin, deadly sins, and never repent, but still be saved. The church/minster also confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Does that mean the church/minister is from God?<<

Oh, David Koot, how we do go on…. We all continue in sins, and the smallest vs the greatest are, in the province of Gd’s judgements – equally severe. Were that ‘continuance’, or no -- the condition upon which we’re saved – Gd help us! Indeed, help us.

>>What is your response?<<

All judgement belongs to Jesus Christ, …and one might, speaking of “Law…”, consider that “bear” in Exodus 20:16 is used as ‘to hear’, as well. That may indicate a revisit to the dogma as to why Dan is excluded from the 144,000.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

The dialogue centers upon whether the Pope is Antichrist or whether he is not.

>>Not from my standpoint. For me, the first and most important issue is, what does the passage say?<<

So, your allegations that the Pope was/is this or that – is simply an exercise?

Per “what does the passage say?” – exactly! What does it say? It could not be more explicit.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

simple assertion

>>That is not something I have done. I have referred to the grammar of the verse. You have not responded to the issue of grammar, other than saying, 'Oh, pettyfog!" That does not speak to the grammatical issue, but is on the order of an assertion or expletive. How about a response on the merits of the granmmatical issue?<<

“Oh pettyfog!” …an expletive? oh, shoosh.

>>You have not responded…<<

I did respond.

Allow me borrow from another thread: “… is not on point, on a number of levels, to the passages at issue …”

I propose that, given the straightforward delineations set forth by the Apostle… one, rather, focusing or dwelling upon “manifestations” engages in secondary and, if not that – surely tertiary meanders (in the ornamental sense, of course

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Yes, one might think so – provided s/he devolves to the most base pejorative meaning of words rather than to the meaning of a language that is culturally specific.

If you disagree, please respond on the merits of the evidence, rather than resorting to abstract or conclusionary statements. What is your response on the merits, and on what evidentiary basis? Other than the 1 John 4:2 question.

[jasd]

>>speaking of “Law…”, consider that “bear” in Exodus 20:16 is used as ‘to hear’, as well. That may indicate a revisit to the dogma as to why Dan is excluded from the 144,000.<<

It has been pointed out to me that the above may be somewhat oblique. The “revisit” I alluded to is not one to substantiate the present teaching that Dan is not numbered among the 144,000 because of ‘gossiping’ or ‘backbiting’. Rather, I suggest that

Dan is not numbered among the 144,000 because it may be that inasmuch as Gd was displeased with the profane Esau’s disregard for his inheritance – likewise, Gd may have taken issue with

Dan ‘regarding not’ his lot in Canaan.

Joshua 19:47 And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them: …

Dan, dissatisfied with his inheritance by lot in the land of Canaan expanded his borders by smiting Leshem to the far North of the allotted lands given to the COI with sword -- taking their land. They, seemingly, altogether tired of their lands – took to the sea in ships.

Deborah bewailed their absence…

Judges 5:17 … and why did Dan remain in ships? …

Thereafter, they left evidence throughout historical records of their wanderings, that is, they were allied with the sea peoples who attempted invasion of Egypt, may have been the Spartans, etc. Moreover, they left evidence of their passage in the place names and legends throughout the lands they either passed through or settled. That evidence, in part, would have been the numerous instances of the representative consonants DN..., as in the names Danube, Dniester, Denmark, etc. It is mostly advanced that

the Tuatha de Danaan of the goddess Danu in Ireland was the tribe of Dan (note: that the Duns or places of Judges in Ireland are thought to derive from Dan/Judge).

[Clio]

Hiya! Clio

Am always delighted to read your posts, and was curious as to whether you have Summers where you live... if so, are they long enough to grow veggies? otherwise,

[jasd]

That is very interesting. Thanks.

Two things constrain my ever going to Alaska (unless railroaded in --yikes!), they are

dread of Alaskan type cold and b'ars! even with a big, big, gun... no thanks.

I'm with you on those unusual (read, yum as in ahhh!) coffees.