Maybe, Maybe Not

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truth_Seeker123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Truth_Seeker123

Guest
This one is up for you all to decide. Now this is just me looking around over the internet and reading some scripture.

We know that the world can come up with some crazy things, but this one, you really have to dig into. Like I said before, A LOT of people target the catholic church. So same questions from the last thread and more. But the main one is, how do you defend this things with doctrine? When people accuse what I believe to be wrong and them right, I simply go to the Bible, so when this situation comes up, what do you refer to? Obviously, these accusations are major to the point where a person just can’t say “that’s not true”

Im not saying that any particular pope is the anti-christ. That’s insane. But will that title come from the catholic church based off of these beliefs. These names were added up by someone else and not myself. These names were also add up in Latin/Roman Numerals

Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
  1. IOANES=1 or John PAVLVS=60 or Paul SECVNDO=605 or II John Paul II
2.VICARIVS=112 FILII=53 DEI=501
  1. ROMIITH=666 or Roman King (hebrew)
4.ROMITI=666 or Roman Man (hebrew)
  1. I Protera=666 (greek)
  2. Lateinos=666 or Latin speaking man (greek)
  3. He=8 Latine=399 Basileia=259 (greek)
  4. ITALIKA=372 EKKLESIA=294 or Italian Church (greek)
  5. APOSTATES=666 (greek)
  6. DVX=515 CLERI=151 or Captain of the Clergy
  7. LVDOVICVS=666 or Vicar or the Court
  8. SANCTA=100 LVX=65 DEI=501 According to the source, this is what the vatican refers itself as (sometimes) or Holy Light of God
  9. REX=10 LATINVS=56 SACERDOS=600 or King of Roman priests
THIS IS NOT MY DOING. I ONLY COPIED AND PASTED. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW YOU STAND ON THIS.

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT MY DOING!!!
 
I see you love to post stuff than ask us not to shoot the messenger.

Caeser Nero. That is 666 in Greek.

The VICARIUS FILII DEI is not a title used by the Pope, so whoever gave you this information is either poorly educated or a liar and will be damned for this kind of action.

In fact, most of the words that are listed are either made up or are not used for the pope.

Check out this site for more information
religion-cults.com/antichrist/666.htm
 
ralphinal said:
I see you love to post stuff than ask us not to shoot the messenger.

Caeser Nero. That is 666 in Greek.

The VICARIUS FILII DEI is not a title used by the Pope, so whoever gave you this information is either poorly educated or a liar and will be damned for this kind of action.

In fact, most of the words that are listed are either made up or are not used for the pope.

Check out this site for more information
religion-cults.com/antichrist/666.htm
Click to expand...
Why would you shoot me and I’m not the one who came up with it. Like I said, I posted it.

Since you are catholic, how do YOU defend it? That’s all I wanted to know.
 
Truth_Seeker123 said:
Why would you shoot me and I’m not the one who came up with it. Like I said, I posted it.

Since you are catholic, how do YOU defend it? That’s all I wanted to know.
Click to expand...
First, any numeric system can generate any number of people to fit the bill. Did you know that Bill Gates is 666 in ASCII system?

Second, the names used have to be actual names and historic titles. This is where the Adventist sites fail miserably. For example, the title VICARIUS FILII DEI has never been used by the Catholic Church. In fact, most of those listed are bogus.

Finally, the fact that Nero fits it perfectly really does seem like the best choice. Revelation was written at a time when the Church was being persecuted by Rome. Nero was the main enemy of the Church.

I am not shooting you. I am pointing out that you are throwing SDA propaganda on here then asking us how to respond. More often than not, you then run and do it again or ask about our Biblical basis for our statements. If you want to discuss, wonderful. If you would like to learn, please join in. If you are hoping that these tired, bogus, poorly formed arguments will turn us, please stop wasting your time and ours.
 
ralphinal said:
First, any numeric system can generate any number of people to fit the bill. Did you know that Bill Gates is 666 in ASCII system?

Second, the names used have to be actual names and historic titles. This is where the Adventist sites fail miserably. For example, the title VICARIUS FILII DEI has never been used by the Catholic Church. In fact, most of those listed are bogus.

Finally, the fact that Nero fits it perfectly really does seem like the best choice. Revelation was written at a time when the Church was being persecuted by Rome. Nero was the main enemy of the Church.

I am not shooting you. I am pointing out that you are throwing SDA propaganda on here then asking us how to respond. More often than not, you then run and do it again or ask about our Biblical basis for our statements. If you want to discuss, wonderful. If you would like to learn, please join in. If you are hoping that these tired, bogus, poorly formed arguments will turn us, please stop wasting your time and ours.
Click to expand...
Why is it that I tell you my reason and go on to say I’m here to do something else? I understand what is going on between SDA’s and catholics. But you have to admit SDA’s use the Bible quite often. Whether wrong or right. On the other hand, very few catholics go to the Bible to back their stance.

If a church is the true church then EVERY scripture can/will be used to back your stance. Why would God not give His Church enough evidence in the Book that is from Him?

So, lets start using it.
 
Truth_Seeker123 said:
How is is that I tell you my reason and go on to say I’m here to do something else?
Click to expand...
I may be wrong, but there is something about the way you post that is deceptive. There is an agenda to your posts that comes across stronger each time. I cannot put my finger on it.
 
So TS, your only purpose here is to post fascinating factoids you have garnered that oh-so-coincidentally seem to attack the Catholic Church? And it’s only because they’re fascinating that you post them? It’s only to give us a sporting chance to defend ourselves against lies, half-truths, deceptions, and crazed anti-Catholic virulence.

And the way that you have figured out to give us this chance is to . . let me be **sure **I have this clear. . .is to bring to the forums every single lie, half-truth, deception and crazed anti-Catholic virulent attack you can possibly find on the internet.

With friends like you we don’t need enemies.
 
ralphinal said:
I may be wrong, but there is something about the way you post that is deceptive. There is an agenda to your posts that comes across stronger each time. I cannot put my finger on it.
Click to expand...
It may seem that way to you and I can’t change that. From the moment I came to this site people said that. I will not change my style of post to make someone else happy. As long as I stick to the Bible, what is the problem?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
So TS, your only purpose here is to post fascinating factoids you have garnered that oh-so-coincidentally seem to attack the Catholic Church? And it’s only because they’re fascinating that you post them? It’s only to give us a sporting chance to defend ourselves against lies, half-truths, deceptions, and crazed anti-Catholic virulence.

And the way that you have figured out to give us this chance is to . . let me be **sure **I have this clear. . .is to bring to the forums every single lie, half-truth, deception and crazed anti-Catholic virulent attack you can possibly find on the internet.

With friends like you we don’t need enemies.
Click to expand...
So again, how do you defend yourself against these lies. Jesus went to the Bible. He would say “it is written”

It’s simple, go to his Word. I’m actually trying to help you, if only you could see it. Go to His Word, it’s there.
 
Truth_Seeker123 said:
It may seem that way to you and I can’t change that. From the moment I came to this site people said that. I will not change my style of post to make someone else happy. As long as I stick to the Bible, what is the problem?
Click to expand...
None of what you posted here, save the verse, is in the Bible. Even worse, none of those titles or names that you posted are in the Bible either.
 
ralphinal said:
None of what you posted here, save the verse, is in the Bible. Even worse, none of those titles or names that you posted are in the Bible either.
Click to expand...
It’s simple, if you claim something, go to the Bible. If it’s not there, it’s not true. You can argue with that, but you will be arguing with God. His Word is perfect and it shall stand forever.

Just read it, put it first before EVERYTHING. If you do that, you will see the lies unfold about everything, every religion. Just put it first.
 
Let me try something. This below is purely hypothetical. It’s simply a fascinating factoid that I have picked up. I’m using you, Truth Seeker, purely because you opened this thread. Everything said below is ‘generic’. It’s just an exercise, you know, for discussion purposes. SO . . .

You hate babies, Truth seeker.. Yes, you do. All your posts 'reek of it. You just hate babies.

And I’m only telling you this because I want you to have a chance to defend yourself against the charge.

Because you know, everybody says you hate babies. And hey, if everybody is saying it, it is so major that you know, it’s just GOTTA be true. I said so.

So go ahead. But, just so you know, I already know (because everybody told me) that you hate babies. So there isn’t any way you can defend yourself. Because I’ll know that you’re lying. Because everybody already has assured me that you hate babies. . .and hey, since everybody says so, it must be so.
That’s an example of “Here is something that disturbs me, what do you say about it” which is meant not to provoke dialogue, but merely to make a charge under the guise of ‘inquiry’, and to be met with consistent, ‘yes, but’ response. The underlying implication is that the disturbing thing is TRUE, and that the person charged needs to agree and repent. Any attempt to address the charge as false is met with disbelief, derision, and the “but so MANY have brought this up that there must be something to it.”

The thing is, pretty soon people can figure out if somebody is sincere. A good way to avoid this is to open up several different threads so that you don’t have to face the music, and can go address whichever one you think you can get the most ‘action’ on.

Discuss. . .
 
Fine, dear Truth Seeker.

Since you ask us, here is our response to your ‘charges above.’

Since those charges are false: Matthew 5:13 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:
 
Truth_Seeker123 said:
It’s simple, if you claim something, go to the Bible. If it’s not there, it’s not true. You can argue with that, but you will be arguing with God. His Word is perfect and it shall stand forever.

Just read it, put it first before EVERYTHING. If you do that, you will see the lies unfold about everything, every religion. Just put it first.
Click to expand...
Alright. Can you show me that concept in the Bible?
 
ralphinal said:
Alright. Can you show me that concept in the Bible?
Click to expand...
And can you show us where the Bible says to rely ONLY on the Bible?

Also, if you are pulling quotes from websites, you should be providing links to those websites. I believe that is addressed in the forum rules

.
 
twopekinguys said:
And can you show us where the Bible says to rely ONLY on the Bible?

Also, if you are pulling quotes from websites, you should be providing links to those websites. I believe that is addressed in the forum rules

.
Click to expand...
So do you believe that the Bible is all you need (in everything)?
 
Truth_Seeker123 said:
  1. He=8 Latine=399 Basileia=259 (greek)
Click to expand...
Not going to go on any of the other ones because this is the one that stood out to me.

I’ve never encountered the word meaning “Latin” in any of the Greek texts I’ve studied, nor does it appear in any of my dictionaries, this is because they accompany other works that don’t use the term, including the NT.

Next, “He” or rather 'η is the feminine form of the nominative definitive article (“the”). In this sentence it should be accompanying the noun “Basileia”, the problem is that the nominative “king” or “emperor” is βασιλευς (or basileus). “Basileia” looks like a rather bad latinization of either the accusative or the dative, neither of which is correct.

So assuming “Latine” is correct, correcting the grammar for the other two words gets you Ho=70 and basileus=848

Seems we’ve gone way over with the word meaning “king.”

Of course this doesn’t take into account that I am unaware of anyone who ever claimed to be “The Latin King.”

Since this one is horribly wrong, it brings into question the rest of the ones I didn’t pay much attention to.
 
It just dawned on me that none of you people are in the Bible. Nor is this website. Nor am I. Therefore, none of this exists and none of your opinion on anything matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top