Is the Antichrist an end-time dictator who has yet to appear?
Dr. Tracy E Barnes | 18 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY3AGFqk6pU
1:36 There certainly is one man, who is going to fill that role.
His name adds up to 666 by simple gematria, probably not Hebrew, some Church Fathers (Irenaeus) say Greek, and the reason given is such, it could apply to ASCII gematria as well.
Having that gematria in given name, family name, assumed office name or more than one of previous, is however not sufficient, there are more criteria.
His dictatorship will start soft (no buying and selling, probably at the very first with some generous exceptions), and it will end up becoming harsher and harsher (decapitation).
He need not hold office in an international way, it's sufficient if those holding office in other countries are controlled by him.
Like Nimrod in Josephus, his project for mankind will have some kind of salvific traits (Josephus' Nimrod pretending they needed to get up to heaven to avoid the next Flood), with some realism (if I place Nimrod correctly in archaeology, the Black Sea had been rising very unsettlingly for some time), but ultimately with bogus realism, which however he will boost as real realism, real science.
He will be very good at drafting people for this project, and making those who refuse it look bad.
Cuneiform numbers are not out of consideration.
If a cuneiform "times" looks sth like bulky, the calculation 12 X 12000 looks like a fish.
The cuneiform for 144 000 is 4 corners, mentioned there.
Now, the cuneiform for 666 looks like a rocket (what I take Nimrod's project to have been meant to be, until God interrupted it) and also like a syringe. You know, Putin's version of the commodity is called Sputnik V. A syringe named after a rocket, basically. You know the context in which syringes are supposed to be saving mankind?
- David King
- @DavidKing-qd3sp
- Vicarius filii Dei....vicar of the son of God = 666 = the Pope
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @DavidKing-qd3sp Vicarius Filii Dei is not a papal title.
Only one supposed Pope ever used the phrase officially in two documents, and Paul VI is probably an antipope.
Constantine's donation (whether you believe it true or a fake) called Pope Sylvester "vicarius et successor Sancti/ Beati Petri qui fuit vicarius Filiii Dei" ... but even if the letter is genuine, Constantine was not the greatest theologian. Nor was he the most papalist of Catholics, a far cry from St. Robert Bellarmine.
Now, Vicarius Christi certainly is a papal title, and it does not so add up.
- David King
- The fact that it was used shows it was a known title. Also, as I said, we are not dependent upon this one point to know the Papacy is the beast of Revelation and the little horn of Daniel 7. The man of sin in 2nd Thess. 2 and the mother of harlots in Rev. 17.
For 666 - we are not dealing with Greek or Hebrew...we are dealing with the language of Papal Rome which was Latin. Read Daniel 7.25 - itsays he will think to change times and laws, now read the catechism which is the teaching book for RC, there is no 2nd commandment because it forbids making or bowing before images or statues, also the 4th commandment is changed which deals with the time of the true sabbath
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @DavidKing-qd3sp "The fact that it was used shows it was a known title."
Here is the story.
1) Constantine (or a forger) described Peter that way, not the current pope;
2) The Donation was widely quoted in a Medieval tractate on the Pope, but the author never himself used it as an actual title;
3) Heretics tried to use this, the way you do;
4) This was known to Montini, the Antipope under the name "Paul VI" and he used it twice, no real and undisputed Pope did.
"we are not dependent upon this one point to know the Papacy is the beast of Revelation and the little horn of Daniel 7."
I think all your other points are as weak.
"we are dealing with the language of Papal Rome which was Latin."
Actually, the language is double, like of the Roman Empire, Latin and Greek.
In consecrations of Churches, a bishop makes a cross of ashes on the floor (X-shaped, not Calvary), the one arm he writes the Latin alphabet with his staff, the other the Greek one and they meet in M.
Roman Numerals are improbable, since they leave letters unnumbered. In Latin alphabet, ASCII is now available and in use by whatever is the end times beast.
"he will think to change times and laws"
That's what some concluded on Paul VI after liturgic and some other changes.
"now read the catechism which is the teaching book for RC"
Which catechism? There are several (and CCC is not a Catholic one).
"there is no 2nd commandment because it forbids making or bowing before images or statues, also the 4th commandment is changed which deals with the time of the true sabbath"
Not sure that is what you find in the catechism of Trent ... here is the first commandment, and it involves the line you pretend is a separate one:
"I am the lord thy god, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. I am the lord thy god, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."
Here is the third commandment:
"Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy works; but on the seventh day is the sabbath of the lord thy god; thou shalt do no work on it, neither thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the lord blessed the seventh day and sanctified it."
Here is an explanation on your key point:
The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
"The Apostles therefore resolved to consecrate the first day of the week to the divine worship, and called it the Lord's day. St. John in the Apocalypse makes mention of the Lord's day; and the Apostle commands collections to be made on the first day of the week, that is, according to the interpretation of St. Chrysostom, on the Lord's day. From all this we learn that even then the Lord's day was kept holy in the Church."
2:40 The actual fact is, the man spoken of is Biblically called "the beast", it's Tradition which calls him "the Antichrist" (because he fulfills the traits spoken of in the verses using that word).
4:32 I nearly totally agree.
and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh
The "you have heard" probably refers to the Tradition (Oral Tradition) already spoken of.
But the rest of the 4 mentions in the Johannine Epistles are as you say of the type of person, not of an individual.
This doesn't mean the tradition doesn't refer to one, this doesn't mean he's not identic to "the man of lawlessness" in Thessalonians, or "the Beast" in Revelation. As Tradition says he is.
5:57 Tradition states that the "last hour" actually does refer to the last 2000 years by now.
Note, "last hour" can be a reference to those who started working in the field only in the last hour of the work day. Traditionally seen as Gentile latecomers to the household of God.
6:15 The Old Covenant ended on Calvary, or, at worst, AD 70, or between these, when a statue of Caligula was placed in the Temple.
This means, I don't think this was the "last hour" of the OT.
9:03 And their (so far, he could mend) spiritual descendant Tovia Singer is present in ours.
Tower of Babel: What Really Happened
Dr. Tracy E Barnes | 30 Oct. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUesqY7kR6I
11:29 So far, I am disagreeing only on one point.
You consider the sons of God set in charge of the nations are the "gods" that the idolaters in them worship. From elsewhere we know, this means demons.
In that sense, "the prince of Persia" would be a demon and be worshipped by idolatrous Persians, either pre-Zoroastrian or Zoroastrian.
The Catholic view is, the prince of Persia was a "guardian angel" (mutatis mutandis!) for the Persian nation, just as much as Michael was it for Israel, and now is it for the Catholic Church.
12:04 Exactly here "these" sons of God desire the worship, which is where I disagree.
No, the sons of God assigned over peoples and the demons seducing to idolatry are different.
No comments:
Post a Comment