vicarivs filii dei

Rage,

Sorry to have to ask again, but just how does this verse tell you how to assign Roman Numerals to the letters of a name and then how to arrive at 666?

Why Roman Numerals?

Why addition and not some combination of math operations?

Does the name have to have three words?

Please explain how the verse tells you to do this.

Please don't just simply repeat the verse.

Ron

 

Then by your admission, you could be completely wrong in how you are arriving at 666 from any given name.

You have no Scriptural basis for how you are doing any of this.

Why wouldn't the letter A = I , B = II , and so on?

Forgive me for saying this, to me your whole arguement simply looks silly.

You have no Scriptural basis for your accusations.

 

are you disputing that the titles mentioned apply to the pope? </font>[/QUOTE]\

1) I am saying that you have not translated these yourself; you have taken them from a "rough English translation."

2) If they are correct, I am not disputing that they refer to the Pope.

3) The term "God on earth" is taken out of the context: "as if God on earth." Thus, it is not a title, but a comparison, one which is overzealous, as has already been stated ("laxism").

4) This is one man's writings, and not those of the Church.

God bless,

Grant

 

What is the source that you quote?

In Christ,

Bob

 

A "real" Historic document - "really" authored BY the Catholic church, FOR the Catholic Church using arguments THAT the citizens and Catholics would readily "accept". A docouments WHOSE CONTENTS were argued FOR by the no fewer than 10 Popes - to make their case.

They "relied" on the truths IN the document to make their point. IF they considered themselves "NOT to be accepted as the Vicar of the Son of God on earth" or if they considered that "invalid" they would simply "NOTE IT" in their arguments made FROM the contents of the document.

As it is - it stands as one of the most ancient and AFFIRMED documents in all of Catholicism in terms of the CONTENTS being argued FOR - IN COURT - by no fewer than 10 Popes.

It was NOT simply the "origin" but the "CONTENTS" that were argued.

There is no way to escape the obvious fact that the CONTENTS were fully acceptable TO and BY the RCC - IT EVEN AUTHORED them.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

This document was in fact promoted for 3 centuries and finds explicit endorsement from no less than 10 Popes. IF the RCC AUTHORING the document and then 10 of her Popes AFFIRMING it - to the point of GAINING legal civil powers as a direct result of it - is NOT the RCC showing WHAT IT thinks to be the rightful position of ITS OWN Pope and Civil power - then nothing does.

Obviously - once the perfidity of the document's origin is discovered - it can no longer be argued as a legal document establishing Papal order in civil matters. BUT that does NOT remove it from showing the HISTORY of what the RCC believed to be ACCEPTABLE Civil powers for the Pope and WHY they felt those civil powers were rightly assigned to the Pope. The Historical "EVIDENCE" CEASES to be the EVIDENCE of what CONSTANTINE was thinking once we find it to be a creation OF the Catholic church. Rather it becomes devastating evidence about what the RCC was thinking - it is evidence of what its AUTHORS and its PROMOTERS were thinking.

In fact IF it had been found to be truly AUTHORED by Constantine - the RCC would have a level of "deniability" claiming that Constantine "just did not understand the accurate title for Peter" since Constantine makes no claim to being a theologian. Instead NO Pope makes that claim about Constantine when arguing FROM the document AND no wonder since the RCC itself AUTHORED the text.

That remains - as with all documents of that type.

In other words it becomes a "MORE ACCURATE" document about Catholic THINKING than of Emperor Constantine's thinking - ONCE we discover it was AUTHORED by Catholics FOR Catholics and endorsed BY no less than 10 Pontiffs! It only INCREASES in value as an indicator of Catholic thought!

When we "follow the details" of what I said and what the document said - we find that it ARGUES FROM the Authority of Peter - stating that ALL SUCCESSORS to Peter inherit Peter's Authority.

By FIRST establishing Peter's Authority as "Vicar of the Son of God on Earth" it then merely "has to show" that the SUCCESSORS inherit that SAME authority. The argument is that THIS authority inherited FROM Peter - is sufficient to justify holding civil powers.

This WAS IN FACT Promoted - this is in fact the argument IN the document. IF you REMOVED that STARTING level of Authority from Peter - THEN showing that someone was a SUCCESSOR to "no authority" would have proved nothing. The Catholic Authors did not make that mistake - are you?

Read the document - the clear fact that they argue FROM Peter's Authority and FIRST establish what that authority was by using (among other things) his TITLE as "VICAR of the Son of God" is explicit in the document.

There is just no way to obfuscate it away.

In Christ,

bob

 

Rage, youdon't seem to get it.

That verse you keep posting does not tell you how to get to 666 from a name.

Anyone could make up any system to get any name to finally equal 666.

R=10 A=200 K=20 G=5 E=1

RAKKA RAGE

10+200+20+20+200+10+200+5+1 = 666

This whole thread is pointless and silly.

[ June 13, 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Careful, someone may take offense.

Since you don't have any Scriptural basis for arriving at 666, what is the point in this exercise?

As I have shown you, Rakka Rage = 666

And you have used that name many many times here.

 

Around and around you go.

Please show me the Scriptural basis for assigning Roman Numerals to letters as you show and then performing the math operations as you show.

You have no Scriptural support for the specific procedures which you have used.

Why is my system any more imaginary than yours?

 

"that is a lie... "

I think the lies on this thread are rather obvious. (that is to those with "eyes that see")

 

"you read the verse... is it not obvious that it is not explicit? it says what to do not how to do it. that does not support roman numerals... but it does not prohibit them. can you not read?"

it is a lie that i "HAVE NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS"...

why do you keep asking the same question over and over? are you just trying to cause trouble? do you just not understand simple english? </font>[/QUOTE]Rak,

Aren't ya supposed to interprut scripture with scripture in sola scriptura or is it you that has the infallible definition of what SS really is. I think John 6:66 is a much better way of applying SS (even though I don't believe in it) than your cockamaime calculation.

God bless you Rak. I know your trying hard to defend what you believe, but I think you better throw in the towel on this one. Raw egg on the face is kind a grose.