The Number 666 is Perfect Exact Unassailable Gematria For the Pope

Just heard a sermon by Sam Storms on the number 666 in which he concludes that it's a symbolic number.  Storms also discussed some attempts to determine its meaning through gematria, or systems of numbers based on various alphabets.  

In some cases if the Greek alphabet doesn't work they try the Hebrew and maybe that will work.  I think he said Hebrew works for Nero.  But why on earth should Nero be identified by the Hebrew alphabet?  Hitler comes up on the English alphabet after assigning some special numbering system to the letters.  This just gets ridiculous.

And I don't know why the system I've posted on so many times isn't better known, or if it is known why it isn't accepted.  It is perfection itself.  There is no need to manipulate the letters and numbers because Latin has a system of Roman numerals based on its letters that is solidly established.  And when it is applied to the LATIN title for Vicar of Christ, VICARIVUS FILII DEI,  for the ROMAN Pope, who is also called by the ROMAN title Pontifex Maximus, it adds up to 666 without any manipulations whatever.  It's a ROMAN/LATIN system of ROMAN/LATIN letters with ROMAN numbers applied to a ROMAN/LATIN title for the Bishop of ROME who is called Pope and the Head of the Church.  By that name he usurps the role of Christ since scripture says Christ and Christ alone is the Head of the Church,  and by the title Vicar of Christ he usurps the role of Christ when you understand it through the Latin phrase VICARIVUS FILII DEI, which literally means "in the place of the Son of God." Add em up, it's 666 without even trying. 

The Pope usurps the role of Christ and the role of the Holy Spirit who is the representative of Christ on earth, NOT the "Pope."   Since the temple of God is the people of God the Pope "sits in the temple of God showing that he is God."   

2Th 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The Antichrist of the Tribulation / Day of the LORD

Soon-coming Rapture and Tribulation or not, the Church needs to recover the understanding that the Anticrhist is the Pope, which used to be commonly recognized but has recently been lost. In the Tribulation he will loom large, but he is the Antichrist now as well as he will be then.

Although the Pope is an unlikely Antichrist as we've come to picture the man we associate with End Times events, he does have all the necessary characteristics as laid out by the Protestant Reformers and their predecessors.  While there is really no doubt as to the identity of the Pope as Antichrist, there may be some legitimate questions about exactly what role he'll play in the Day of the Lord or Great Tribulation, since he could play False Prophet to a political Antichrist as the Pope in Hitler's time did to Hitler.  The Day of the Lord is generally understood to occur during the Seventieth Week of Daniel's prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, which was not fulfilled in the time of the coming of Christ.  It is therefore understood to have been put off to the future.  It is now understood to be bracketed by two stages of the Second Coming of Christ, the first to Rapture His Church, and the second or last to return as conquerer of the entire world.  In between there is to be the Day of the Lord or Great Tribulation of seven years.

Here is the main scripture that is taken to describe the Antichrist:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4: Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The Pope is primarily identified as the Antichrist from the little horn of Daniel 7:8, and also from this passage quoted above.  The "falling away" is also known as the Great Apostasy, and these days the futurists point to current deviations in the many churches from the gospel truth.  And that certainly has to be a major part of the apostasy (and here's a link to Jan Markell's latest summary of this falling away: https://myemail.constantcontact.com/What-Happened-to-My-Church-.html?soid=1101818841456&aid=dVUinwAfOT0), but the Reformers, especially Martin Luther I believe, identified it as the doctrines of the Roman Church, though today there is a lot of ignorance and apathy about this fact among Protestants.  The "man of sin" also known as the "son of perdition" is identified with the Pope.  It is his role as "Vicar of Christ" by which he "opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God" and he "sits in the temple of God" because the people of Christ are now called the "temple of God.  I've posted on the Latin title VICARIVS FILII DEI, which means Vicar of Christ or literally, "Substitute" or "In the place of the Son of God" showing that the Latin letters which are also Roman numerals add up to 666.

I collected some references from a CD by Chris Pinto, who got his list from a book titled What Luther Says by E.M. Plass, a book I can’t afford at the moment though it sounds like a must-have. He lists many who came before the Reformers who called the papacy the Antichrist, which ought to dispel the accusation of Luther that he made it up in retaliation for being excommunicated. (As a matter of fact it took him about five years to become fully convinced from scripture and history that the Pope was indeed the Antichrist.)

The following is a much shortened list from a site called Revelation Timeline that includes all those who testified that the papacy is the Antichrist that Chris Pinto mentioned: http://revelationtimelinedecoded.com/historical-witnesses-against-antichrist-summary.

Historical Witnesses Against Antichrist Summary  

Arnulf (991), the Bishop of Orleans, proclaimed the Pope as the Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself as God.

Gherbert of Rheims (1000) said; the Pope was the antichrist sitting in the temple of God.

In the book of Waldensian Pastor Leger called “Treatise on Antichrist” written in 1120, said “That treatise brands the Romish Church as the harlot Babylon, and the Papacy as the “man of sin” and antichrist.”

John Wycliffe (1330-1384) Who translated the Latin Vulgate Bible into English, said Antichrist, the head of all these evil men, is the pope of Rome.

John Purvey (1354–1414), one of the leading followers of the English theologian and reformer John Wycliffe; said the Papacy was the kingdom of the Antichrist.

John Huss (1372-1415), a well-educated man from Bohemia, who came under the influence of Wycliffe’s writings, which caused him to break with the church of Rome; proclaimed the Antichrist has been revealed in the Pope for which he was burned to death.

William Tyndale (1493-1536) was an English scholar who became a leading figure in Protestant Reformation; said the Pope is the antichrist and his doctrine sprung of the devil.

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531) was a great Swiss Reformer; proclaimed the might and power of the Devil, that is, of the Antichrist… the Papacy has to be abolished.

John Calvin (1509-1564) was an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation; said we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist.

Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, who the Father called out of the Papal Church. declared “We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist.”

Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560), a German Reformer, said that the Roman Pontiff is the antichrist.

Confession of the Glastonbury Congregation (1551)…French refugees in England who first gathered under Calvin and Farel; “Moreover I renounce the Pope as the Roman Antichrist, and his whole doctrine and religion…“

In 1555 Hugh Latimer, Bishop of Worcester; said before being burned to death, “What fellowship have Christ with Antichrist? Therefore it is not lawful to bear the yoke with the Papists. Come forth from among them, and separate yourselves from them, saith the Lord.’“

Nicholas Ridley (1555), English Bishop of London; said before being burned to death that the See of Rome is the seat of Satan.

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) as the Archbishop of Canterbury, he was responsible for establishing the first doctrinal and liturgical structures of the reformed Church of England; said before being burned to death that the Pope is Christ’s enemy, and the antichrist.

Henry Adlington, Laurence Pernam, Henry Wye, William Halliwel, Thomas Bowyer, George Searles, Edmund Hurst, Lyon Cawch, Ralph Jackson, John Derifall, John Routh, Elizabeth Pepper, and Agnes George (1556); were all burnt in one fire, for proclaiming the Pope as Antichrist under the devil. Agnes Prest (1557) was burned to death for proclaiming that the Pope is the Antichrist and the devil.

John Knox (1505-1572) was a great leader of the Reformation in Scotland; said “the pope should be recognized as “the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks.”

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) was Zwingli’s intimate friend and succeeded him as chief pastor of the Zurich Cathedral; said the Little Horn is the kingdom of the Roman pope.

The Geneva Study Bible (1556) included study notes from the Protestant Reformers, that all proclaimed that the Popes of Rome were the antichrist beast.

The Church of England declared that the Papal Church of Rome is the Babylonian beast, saying that the Pope is antichrist, and the Man of Sin.

The Church of Scotland Confession of Faith (1603) declared the Pope as the Antichrist, the man of sin and son of perdition.

The Irish Articles of Religion of 1615 testified that the Bishop of Rome is the Man of Sin.

The London Baptist Confession of 1689, proclaims that the Popes of Rome is the antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ.

Westminster Confession of Faith (1649) which was ratified and established by Act of Parliament in 1649. states that the Popes of Rome is the antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church.

Cotton Mather (1663-1728) in his book, Fall of Babylon,; said that all the characteristics of Antichrist are answered in the Popes of Rome.

Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and also a faithful expositor of Bible prophecy; taught that the Church of Rome was the Little Horn of Daniel.

John Wesley (1703-1791), an Anglican cleric and Christian theologian,; said that the whole succession of popes from Gregory VII. are undoubtedly Antichrist. Jonathan Edwards, an American preacher and theologian, who is perhaps best known for his role in the Great Awakenings of the mid 1700’s; said that the greatest and most cruel enemy of the Church of Christ is the church of Rome.

Dr. H. Grattan Guinness (1835-) pointed to the Roman Catholic Popes as the little horn power of Daniel 7, the Man of Sin in 2nd Thessalonians and the Beast of Revelation 13.

Reverend J. A.Wylie (1808 – 1890) in his Preface to “The Papacy is the Antichrist; says that the Roman system is the predicted Apostacy.  

--David Nikao [compiler] For more detailed quotes from the above people who testified against the Popes of Rome, as the Little Horn of Daniel 7, the Son of Perdition of 2 Thessalonians 2, and the antichrist beast of Revelation 13; read Historical Witnesses Against

The passage in 2 Thessalonians goes on to say that this man of sin had not yet been revealed in Paul's time, so he is only hinting at it in writing, having told the Thessalonians in person at an earlier time. Today it is thought that what restrains the revealing of an as-yet-unknown Antichrist is the Holy Spirit, or the Church, but the Reformers understood Paul to be referring to the Roman Empire or the Caesars who were still in power in his time, which explains why he wouldn't identify them in writing. And as I mentioned in the previous post about the Pope this makes sense if you recognize that the Pope has taken the place of the Caesars with their title Pontifex Maximus and their Roman garb, and his presiding over an institution that over time acquired most of the trappings of the Roman pagan religions, including putting various Christian "saints" in the place of some of the Roman gods and encouraging prayers to them as to gods.

2 Thess 2:6-9 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders...

Some historical information.
Those who identified the Pope as the Antichrist saw the Antichrist papal system as having developed in the year 606 (about the same time Islam conquered the Eastern Roman Empire). I think it was the Byzantine Emperor who referred to Pope Gregory the Great as "universal bishop" to which Gregory replied that anyone who accepted that title would be a forerunner of Antichrist. Then the next Pope, Boniface, DID accept it as it was given to him by the Byzantine Emperor Phocas. Gregory the Great was thought by the Reformers to be the last legitimate Bishop of Rome, all those following being the Antichrist papal system. Over the ensuing years the Church of Rome accumulated the superstitions of pagan Rome that came to characterize its functions. Relics, prayers to saints, the rosary, and so on. This is all addressed in a book titled The History of Romanism by John Dowling, but I think Luther also addressed it, which would be in the book What Luther Says, by Plass.  

Is Nero Caesar the Antichrist?

Heard a preacher on the radio saying that the early Christians who were persecuted under Nero regarded him as the Antichrist and that his name Nero Caesar can be calculated in Hebrew or Greek, it wasn't clear which he meant, to add up to 666.  When I've looked it up I've found it very hard to find a clearcut proof of this, it usually involves adding a letter or a title and I'm still not clear whether it's in Hebrew or Greek that it's supposed to be calculated.    Here, see the Wikipedia article that discusses this. The original is Hebrew but it's worked back from the Greek, and there's even a form in Latin. I don't find any of this very convincing, especially considering how convincing the Latin title of the Pope is that so clearly adds up to 666 without any fuss or bother.

This is a favorite view of Preterist eschatology, which interprets much of New Testament prophecy as over and done with in the past, which is of course the case with this view of the Antichrist.  No need to think about it any further, no big final Antichrist in our future, all over and done with.  I wonder who might have a vested interest in promoting this viewpoint, hm?

If I find a convincing calculation for Nero, OK, but even if I did I could only think of him as the first of the line of official Antichrists, the papacy having picked up the role down the centuries to the present. This could be justified since the papacy in so many respects is clearly a continuation of Roman paganism, from the weird garb to the title "pontiff" from "Pontifex Maximus" to the godification as it were of the Pope with his supposed infallibility and kissing his ring or foot or whatever.  And for the papacy there IS a definite 666 that can be calculated from the Pope's title Vicarivs Filii Dei ("In the place of the Son of God"), in LATIN of course, because the Antichrist is to be the leader of the revived ROMAN EMPIRE according to other Biblical prophecies (Think Holy Roman Empire with its failed version the Third Reich, and now the European Union).

Now of course you will find all this challenged by those with a vested interest in avoiding the connection with the papacy.  And a lot of deceived Protestants have bought into it too.  You will for instance find the title itself challenged as never having been an official title of the Pope.  But then Chris Pinto did prove that it is, only I'm lousy at keeping notes so I'll have to go find that information again. 

And of course there is the papacy's masterpiece of deception, the "oldest" Bible manuscripts which have 616 instead of 666.  And everybody eats that up too, although Codex Vaticanus is surely a forgery and Codex Sinaiticus is highly questionable if not proven to be a forgery. At least it is certainly a corruption created in the early centuries as John Burgon believed. But since these two manuscripts only showed up in the 19th century we can at least say "Hm, I wonder what vested interests might benefit from that little discovery?"  But Chris Pinto is a much better researcher than I am, he has all the info on this so go check out his site, Noise of Thunder Radio.

Sorting out the history of true Christianity from that of the apostate Antichrist Roman church

I thought I had a pretty good grasp of church history and of the antichrist nature of the Catholic Church, but what I've been learning recently shows me that not only my own education in this area but what the Protestant churches in general know is sadly deficient. And I've heard some very good teaching on church history so this is saying something.

I'm talking about what I've been learning recently through Chris Pinto and Brannon Howse at their websites, and now this morning from Mike Gendron (pro-gospel.org), an ex-Catholic who seeks to educate Catholics to the truth, who was Howse's guest on today's radio show.

Much of the confusion comes from the fact that there are two different streams of church history, the Catholic and the Protestant, and it is possible to read a Catholic history without being aware that you are absorbing false propaganda. I'm sure that's happened to me many times. Getting the true history straight is not easy for the average reader.

A caller from the UK on Howse's program this morning referred to a book about the history of Christianity in England by Charles Bullock, titled The Story of England's Church written in the 19th century, which is online at Google Books. Wish I could copy out some of it. It's the sort of information that all Protestant churches should have been making a major effort to teach their people all along, so that no Protestant could ever be deluded that Roman Catholicism is a Christian church which so often happens.

Broader knowledge of this kind of information would have protected many individuals and even denominations from their own leanings in the direction of that apostasy that unfortunately seems to be growing these days, and it would have made a much stronger base for helping Catholics escape. It's certainly true that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, but of course we cannot remember it unless we are taught it if it is a past before our time.

What I've been learning from these ministries is that the Roman Church was recognized very early on as the seat of the Antichrist, at least back to the first Waldensians, who fled to the mountains upon recognizing the Pope as the Abomination of Desolation sitting in the temple making himself out to be God, as scripture warns us is to occur. I'd otherwise had the notion that it was the Reformers who first identified the papacy as the Antichrist system. I also hadn't digested the fact before that the Pope by receiving the sort of worship he receives does make himself out to be God, if the title "Vicar of Christ" weren't enough of a clue [and the Roman numerals in that title as written in Latin -- VICARIVUS FILII DEI -- add up to 666, by the way (The phrase means "In the place of, or substitute for, the Son of God")]. I've also learned that the Great Apostasy or falling away was attributed to the doctrines of the Roman Church all the way back to the early church as well, and that the apostasy was a thing that grew over the centuries so that it is hard to identify the exact point at which it was fullblown. Perhaps by the time of the first official Pope at least, which was in the late 6th century. I've also learned beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Emperor Constantine was not a true Christian convert since he continued to affirm the pagan religions that a true Christian would have abandoned completely, and that it's even possible he may have confused Christ with the pagan god Sol Invictus.

From this fuller view of history it's easier to see how some would not necessarily be expecting a final individual to be the Antichrist, as he's been in the world all these centuries. It certainly makes clear that Nero was NOT the Antichrist as some argue -- was THAT familiar idea a Roman concoction perhaps?

There's plenty of reading on this subject on the internet. Just following out the entries on this Google page should keep you busy for a while. I see that Michele Bachmann's church rightly says that the Pope is the Antichrist but of course the entry on that has the usual politically correct spin, which in this case is the Roman Catholic slant. I particularly appreciate Ian Paisley on this subject. He's a fire-and-brimstone Irish preacher whose style of preaching can be rather offputting, but I became a fan when he was shown in one of Chris Pinto's films confronting the Pope as the Antichrist when he was speaking in British Parliament [correction:  that's the European Parliament, and Dr. Paisley is more than just a preacher, he's also a high-ranking government leader in Ireland with a chair in the European Parliament]. THAT's the spirit of Protestantism we need more of.

One recent comment by Chris Pinto on a radio show caught my attention as he took to task Marshall Foster who said something to the effect that after Constantine legalized Christianity the Roman Empire furthered the spread of the gospel. Chris Pinto objected that all the Roman Empire did was spread the apostate Christianity of the Roman Church. I need this sorted out better. I hadn't heard of Marshall Foster before, but I have heard teaching along the lines that the Roman Empire was one of God's means for spreading the gospel. This goes along with other teaching I've heard that God chose to send the Lord Jesus into the world when Koine Greek was the universal language so that the gospel writings could be easily disseminated, AND when the Roman Empire with its wide reach made travel easy. God of course disposes all things, and the gospel did spread throughout Europe, but did the legalization of it through Constantine aid that or not? The idea is that after the persecutions of Christians by the Roman Emperors were lifted it was easier for the evangelists to do their work, along with the idea that the fact that Roman institutions were established all over Europe, even just the Roman roads, facilitated the spread of the gospel as well. This may be something along the lines of what Marshall Foster had in mind, but of course I don't know. And even if so, Chris Pinto may be right that the legalization of Christianity didn't aid anything but the spread of apostasy and Marshall Foster simply has the usual Catholicized version of history that we are all so easily made prey to. Or perhaps there's some truth in both views.

That reminded me of a book I read a few years ago about the effect of Christianity in changing the world for the better, Alvin J. Schmidt's Under the Influence. As I recall, the book presents the effect of the spread of Christianity (and I believe he attributes this effect partly to Constantine's legalization of the religion) as specifically fostering humane treatment of the sick and suffering, including rescuing newborn infants left to die and the aged who were also put out on the street to die, by first taking such victims in and caring for them but then by establishing hospitals and orphanages. He also credits Christianity with liberalizing society's attitude toward women through the model of Christ, also with paving the way for true empirical science because of Christianity's view of God as a God of law and order, unlike the gods of the pagans.

But now after seeing Chris Pinto's films I recognize that Schmidt misrepresented Francis Bacon as a Christian, who was an occultist. He also wrote a reference book about secret societies in America, which clearly presents them as benign positive influences, quite the opposite of what Chris Pinto's films reveal.

The plot thickens.

More Musings on the Election and the Antichrist

One problem with the Bible versions I think I mentioned earlier is that they make it just about impossible to find a particular verse that you don't remember perfectly. I remember something about a "little horn," usually interpreted to represent the Antichrist, pushing its way into a position of influence "by intrigue" but the word "intrigue" does not come up in Strong's. Another case of the new versions defeating God's people. Of course it would be good to know the Bible so well we wouldn't be dependent on Strong's. I'll find the quote eventually.

I'll be amazed if Obama doesn't win. It's been growing on me that Obama could indeed be "the One" as Oprah dubbed him when she endorsed him. My brother does not have revelations, it's not at all typical of him, but he says this was really something, the way he woke up with this sense of certainty a week or so ago that Obama is the Antichrist. He says he abruptly sat up in bed from the absolute certainty of it.

I didn't bite at first about Obama, and I'm still holding the idea lightly. I have other ideas about the qualifications for Antichrist, but it has been growing on me that he could be right. The Pope has excellent qualifications for instance, as I've mentioned before, including the number 666 in his Latin title, and whether the Last Pope is THE Antichrist or not, he's going to be a major player in some role or other. I also thought the Antichrist would probably have to be Jewish or part Jewish to be a convincing savior to the Jews, and there is at least one Jewish Cardinal who could become Pope, but I've realized the Jews who would be deceived don't really know their scriptures anyway and many think Obama is a savior already. He also fits the biblical portrait of the "little horn" in Daniel that just pushes its way up out of nowhere "by intrigue" to a position of influence.

I know we're in the time just before the Man of Sin is to be revealed, I've been sure of that since the beginning of 2007 that it's right around the corner. The Pope has been my working candidate for years, and the next and last Pope can't be far off considering the age of Benedict.

I haven't been succeeding at persuading anyone of any of my last-days thoughts, but you know, a seed planted may sprout later, in God's timing, as the meaning of the prophecies unfolds in reality.

Anyway I've voted in the early voting, against Obama more than for McCain. A weak moment perhaps. I could regret voting for McCain but had to put in a vote against the duplicitous Obama. But McCain doesn't represent much of what a Christian should support, either, and I did agree with what Alan Keyes says about how a Christian shouldn't vote for any shade of evil for any reason. Not the slightest waffling on abortion or gay marriage for instance.

I've never felt fear before in thinking about all these things, but lately I've had to work to put down the fear. Prayer, psalms, remembering God is on the throne, are the antidote. Usually it's been more disgust and sadness over the direction the country has been going, but lately there's been this tinge of fear -- this is way bigger than just another Presidential election. But we are not to be anxious over anything so I have to keep reminding myself of that. The Lord always supplies His faithful ones who trust in Him and depend upon Him. In a time such as Revelation portends we might even expect the kind of support He gave Elijah and the widow woman during the famine.