System 666 Set-up

[InChrist]

"Humankind has never had a more urgent task than creating broad immunity for coronavirus."

What crap that is. There's many more pressing issues in this world, like the destruction of the environment and the current global economic crisis, for two.

I can't stand Gates. I wonder how much more money he stands to make off of this.

I agree, there are definitely major issues that are more urgent.
I suppose if he’s going to invest billions, he plans to make even more billions in profit.

 

[InChrist]

the Book of Revelation is a book of symbols . Virtually everything in it is symbolic in some way. even the mark on peoples foreheads is symbolic for it shows their true demeanor and devotion

Maybe according to you, everything is symbolic, but not according to the scriptures which are about very real life events on this earth, after which follows eternity.

 

[ChristineM]

What does a search for truth have to do with favoring a scroll that opposes a martyr and early church leader who stated that 616 was an error, and did so before the fragmented scroll you tout was written?

Now you pretend that some conspiracy exists where someone stole his books and placed others in there??
They do. He has two books that survived.

Facts. I know you dont like them. But you have none and i have so...

Done make garbage up to massage your ego. No conspiracy, just factual history compared to revisionist history.

Provide evidence is all you need to do? Nothing more, nothing less. So far you have avoided any evidence and relied solely on opinion and made claims about those opinions that fail at the first reading.

 

[dad]

Facts. I know you dont like them. But you have none and i have so...

On the topic of the Bishop who stated that 616 was in error, you are the one avoiding facts.

Done make garbage up to massage your ego. No conspiracy, just factual history compared to revisionist history.

If you claim there was actually no Bishop who lived in Lyon, and was buried there, and who wrote books, and who is quoted in places like wiki as saying 616 is an error, then you are in denial.

When we have a martyr and a leader who was in the direct teaching line of John the apostle (through Polycarp..another martyr) that was familiar with 666 and 616, and stated that 616 was in error, that has weight. Especially when his claims are older than the fragmented copy of a scroll you cite.

 

[CG Didymus]

Maybe according to you, everything is symbolic, but not according to the scriptures which are about very real life events on this earth, after which follows eternity.

He's talking about Revelation. Do you take it literal? It's got beasts and dragons in it.

 

[ChristineM]

On the topic of the Bishop who stated that 616 was in error, you are the one avoiding facts.

If you claim there was actually no Bishop who lived in Lyon, and was buried there, and who wrote books, and who is quoted in places like wiki as saying 616 is an error, then you are in denial.

When we have a martyr and a leader who was in the direct teaching line of John the apostle (through Polycarp..another martyr) that was familiar with 666 and 616, and stated that 616 was in error, that has weight. Especially when his claims are older than the fragmented copy of a scroll you cite.

How many times? Wiki is not first hand evidence, have you got first hand evidence of your claim?

I make no claims about whether your bishop lived or not, that us your straw mam to divert the fact that you have no first hand evidence

 

[dad]

He's talking about Revelation. Do you take it literal? It's got beasts and dragons in it.

Governments are referred to as beasts in prophecy. You think there are no governments? Symbolism does not take anything away from reality, it just adds more reality to it. Revelation makes it clear for example that a beast with seven heads is something representing seven nations. There really are those kingdoms and they are presented as a beast with seven heads. The beast IS the seven kingdoms, especially in their final form. The final kingdom will have influences from Greece and Persia and Rome and Babylon etc. The final ruler has one of his descriptive names as the 'beast' also. That does not mean the guy is a lion or other beast. It is not just symbolism, there is a real man and real kingdoms.

 

[dad]

How many times? Wiki is not first hand evidence, have you got first hand evidence of your claim?

I make no claims about whether your bishop lived or not, that us your straw mam to divert the fact that you have no first hand evidence

Last Thurdayism and denial then. OK. I prefer a reasoned debate.

 

[ChristineM]

Last Thurdayism and denial then. OK. I prefer a reasoned debate.

You already tried those insults and failed. What you prefer is people to agree with your confirmation bias with no evidence, that is not debate.

I have asked you seven times now for first hand evidence, a reasonable request considering my claim does have first hand evidence in the form of papyrus 115. All you can provide is some ministry text that clams he "thought" 616 was wrong. No first hand evidence of this either but it does put a small dent in your claim.

 

[dad]

You already tried those insults and failed. What you prefer is people to agree with your confirmation bias with no evidence, that is not debate.

It is not an insult to point out historical characters that were well known disagreed with your claims.

I have asked you seven times now for first hand evidence, a reasonable request considering my claim does have first hand evidence in the form of papyrus 115.

The martyr who pre-dated scroll 115 knew about the error. Having someone repeat that error (whoever wrote the fragmented scroll, who knows?) does not make it true! We know it was error because a leader of the early church, connected to John the apostle came out and stated it clearly.

You echo the error.

All you can provide is some ministry text that clams he "thought" 616 was wrong. No first hand evidence of this either but it does put a small dent in your claim.

The evidence is what he wrote. Your doubts have no basis at all, and your denial is apparent. How does it feel to be a last thurdayist?

 

[ChristineM]

It is not an insult to point out historical characters that were well known disagreed with your claims.

It is an insult to make disparaging comments design to be insulting and you know it.

The martyr who pre-dated scroll 115 knew about the error. Having someone repeat that error (whoever wrote the fragmented scroll, who knows?) does not make it true! We know it was error because a leader of the early church, connected to John the apostle came out and stated it clearly.

You echo the error.

Wrong, the document you provided stated clearly that he THINKS it was wrong, which is far more honest than making definite claims without evidence.

My claim was that 616 is the earliest evidence. Nothing more, nothing less, when you provide physical evidence to counter that then you can make definite claims. Until then this nonsense of dictating without first hand evidence is over

The evidence is what he wrote. Your doubts have no basis at all, and your denial is apparent. How does it feel to be a last thurdayist?

So provide copies of first hand evidence, that's all i ask and all you have failed to do for more than a week of your foot stomping.

And more insult. Sheesh how pathetic.

 

[dad]

It is an insult to make disparaging comments design to be insulting and you know it.

I think that denial of recent history is commonly associated with last thursdayism. I am not sure what they call the denial of denial.

Wrong, the document you provided stated clearly that he THINKS it was wrong, which is far more honest than making definite claims without evidence.

How about this..'The leader, Bishop, and martyr of the early church thinks it is WRONG'?

My claim was that 616 is the earliest evidence. Nothing more, nothing less,

You were shown wrong. Before the scroll 115 was written, the error it contained was exposed by a respected early church leader specifically.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

This might be neither here nor there but I like 666 to mean Teitan:

Number 666 Symbolism, 666 Meaning and Numerology

My special number or one of them is 999.

 

[cataway]

He's talking about Revelation. Do you take it literal? It's got beasts and dragons in it.

and crazy looking insects that live 5 month

 

[cataway]

This might be neither here nor there but I like 666 to mean Teitan:

Number 666 Symbolism, 666 Meaning and Numerology

My special number or one of them is 999.

its not Numerology but there are people that do come to that conclusion

 

[ChristineM]

I think that denial of recent history is commonly associated with last thursdayism. I am not sure what they call the denial of denial.

I gave not denied history. Factual, evidenced history. I have provided first hand evidence of the oldest recorded writing of the number. Now all you need to do is provide first hand evidence to show that it is incorrect. I am asking for nothing more. Simple, basic, first hand evidence. Which to date you have failed to supply.

How about this..'The leader, Bishop, and martyr of the early church thinks it is WRONG'?

Possibly, you have not provided first hand evidence for your claim so my first hand evidence wins.

You were shown wrong. Before the scroll 115 was written, the error it contained was exposed by a respected early church leader specifically.

Nope, papyrus 115 is recognised as bring older than any first hand evidence that gives 666.

Like much of christian myth,it is possible that it has been changed/edited during copying. Revisionist history is rife. Until you provide evidence to prove papyrus 115 wrong it stands as the oldest recorded evidence.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

its not Numerology but there are people that do come to that conclusion

I like that Apollo Parnopius seems to be active in the Book of Revelation, apropos since its the Final Book and concerns "Apocalypse" or revealing and making manifest things as well.

 

[dad]

I gave not denied history. Factual, evidenced history.

If you do not deny the Bishop that exposed the 616 as a fraud, then should we say you accept him?

I have provided first hand evidence of the oldest recorded writing of the number.

False. The writings of the Bishop are older! Not only that but we know who he was, so who wrote the erroneous scrolls that are dated later?

Nope, papyrus 115 is recognised as bring older than any first hand evidence that gives 666.

Not if the Bishop wrote first!!


We don't need wiki either as a source.

"Irenaeus adopted a totally negative and unresponsive attitude, however, toward Marcion, a schismatic leader in Rome, and toward Gnosticism, a fashionable intellectual movement in the rapidly expanding church that espoused dualism. Because Gnosticism was overcome through the efforts of the early Church Fathers, among them Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, Gnostic writings were largely obliterated. In reconstructing Gnostic doctrines, therefore, modern scholars relied to a great extent on the writings of Irenaeus, who summarized the Gnostic views before attacking them. After the discovery of the Gnostic library near Najʿ Ḥammādī (in Egypt) in the 1940s, respect for Irenaeus increased: he was proved to have been extremely precise in his report of the doctrines he rejected.

Saint Irenaeus | bishop of Lyon

 

[ChristineM]

If you do not deny the Bishop that exposed the 616 as a fraud, then should we say you accept him?

I do not deny the bishop existed and you now this. The person claiming i deny the bishop is you. Not rely an honest technique to use and i have told you before. Do nor make up garbage n attribute it to me just to massage your ego.
Not only do i accept his existence he also possibly had an opinion as bishops tend to do. An opinion is not evidence. And that's all i want, first hand evidence.

False. The writings of the Bishop are older! Not only that but we know who he was, so who wrote the erroneous scrolls that are dated later?

The writings you have of allegedly the bishop are not original therefore cannot be taken as fact.

Not if the Bishop wrote first!!

HOW MANY TIMES???
Provide first hand evidence. If you cannot provide first hand evidence which, considering i have asked you 9 times now and 9 times you have huffed and puffed but failed to provide first hand evidence, then i would say you cannot provide first hand evidence. Therefore what you have is opinion. You are welcome to that opinion but it does not change fact that the first valid, first hand use if the number is 616

Thanks for your time, i need to inform you i am wasting no more time on your blustering.

 

[dad]

I do not deny the bishop existed and you now this. The person claiming i deny the bishop is you. Not rely an honest technique to use and i have told you before. Do nor make up garbage n attribute it to me just to massage your ego.
Not only do i accept his existence he also possibly had an opinion as bishops tend to do. An opinion is not evidence. And that's all i want, first hand evidence.

The word of a martyr teaching us is better than a copied known error. It is also older!

The writings you have of allegedly the bishop are not original therefore cannot be taken as fact.

"2. These men, therefore, ought to learn [what really is the state of the case], and go back to the true number of the name, that they be not reckoned among false prophets. But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six..."

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, V.30 (St. Irenaeus)

"The consensus of scholarship is that all or nearly all of what we have as Against Heresies is indeed from Irenaeus, and that Irenaeus wrote MUCH more, some of which we also have, but much of which is lost."

How can we be sure 100% that the writings of Irenaeus are genuine? – Evidence for Christianity

HOW MANY TIMES???
Provide first hand evidence. If you cannot provide first hand evidence which, considering i have asked you 9 times now and 9 times you have huffed and puffed but failed to provide first hand evidence, then i would say you cannot provide first hand evidence. Therefore what you have is opinion. You are welcome to that opinion but it does not change fact that the first valid, first hand use if the number is 616

There may be no original manuscripts for Josephus either. Does this mean you reject his writings?