Doctor X

Devilnaut:

The problem with:

is that "man" and "a certain man" are not in the text.

Rather hard to make a distinction that is not there.

--J.D.

Devilnaut

Yeah, I think what they meant was that you could calculate the number on your own, and it's 666... not sure if Amos wants to clarify this or what.

But I don't think it matters to much to the beast being on the side of God or on the side of the Devil :P

Another way of looking at the beast coming from God (now that I'm reading into revelation 15, which is clearly identified with the number 7) is that 6 is a number in the chain of 1 to 7 (or 8) and hence it is from God. Part of the point of the beast passage, I think, is that even though things may be ugly and vile or not jive with your view of the world (I think the beast is the opposite of the antichrist, who tries to comfort the world... correct me if I'm wrong), that they too are part of God and if you reject them and regress into the comfort of imposing your expectations on to the world around you (instead of letting the beast have its way IE letting the world impose it's reality and mold your mind around it)... then you are in hell. The beast is like man's animal nature coming back to reclaim what was once his (and really, always has been, even though the devil might have tricked us into thinking we could be the controllers).

This is really backed up in rev 15 where they have entered "7" and conquered the beast (AND his image, important because images are not real and not of God and the people in rev 15 know this now), when the angels bring the 7 plagues upon the people but the people that conquered the beast are singing.

They make the plagues seem really awful to make sure that no one in catholocism comes up that way until they're ready.

Doctor X

Except the text does not ask you to calculate the number on your own.

Also, the number is "six hundred sixty six" rather than "six six six."

The variant reads out "six hundred sixteen."

Methinks the link Toto gives is a very good explanation of the meaning intended.

--J.D.

R P McMurphy

Thanks everyone for the responses,

It seems that 666 still "haunts" people - Hwy 666 in Arizona just got changed because of the bad reputation of the number.

I have researched this thing for some time - years in fact (off and on) as a hobby, as part of a still larger quest to understand the relationship between mathematics and religion (and everything else as well!)

As I wrote before I have no great revelations to pass on. But there are some facts about this mystery that bear considering.

As some of you mentioned, the whole 666 thing is a matter of gematria - the practice of finding the numerical value of a given letter and then doing some kind of operation on the letters/numbers of some word (or words).

At this point let me be emphatic about something before I get flamed. I do not hold ANY mystical belief system about ANY Bible numbers. I think those that do are nuts. That's exactly why I pose the question to this list.

However, that doesn't mean that the people who wrote the Bible - OT and NT - didn't have such ideas about numbers and letters. People who have made a study of the Kabbalah know very well that the ancients of many societies did have these kinds of mystical interpretations about numbers. The *scholarly* study of such ideas (as they may appear in the Bible) has been virtually non-existent however due to the horror of serious acedemics who fear to approach what is for sure a mine-field of unprovable assertions and mystical clap-trap that would surely doom the careers of those who tried to seriously "de-code" some of these ideas. Not being a NT scholar (I'm a lowly mechanical engineer - and a wierdo to boot) I have no such fears.

To return to the nitty-gritty. I think that one of the reply posts very accurately dismisses the theory (comforting tho it may be to some folks) that the writer of Revelations was referring to Nero.

Also, I am well aware of the 666 vs 616 difference. My research has been that scholars accept that 666 is the original intended number that the author first wrote. I can't support that with cites at the moment, but bear with me for now.

Consider the problem mechanically. Lets say I'm a Christian author of the 1st century. I want to give a name - but for what ever reason I give *the number* of the name instead. Why? Some have suggested its because John (presumed author) feared to give the exact name because of the possibility of retribution by the named party. OK, but then consider that when working with gematria, giving the number instead of the name dooms the reader to uncertainity because obviously there are many, many, names that could be made to "equal" the given number. (Whereas when giving a name there is only a single number that can be obtained by adding all the numerical values of the letters of the name).

Consider the possibility that it is *the number itself* that is the important issue here, NOT "the name" that everyone has spent so much wasted time trying to decipher.

Which leads to the following questions, "What is interesting about the number from a mathematical point of view?" also, "Was there a tradition of mystical numerical intrepretation that the author was privy to?" and if so, the Key Question follows, "What was the significance of this number in this mystical system?"

I don't want to write a book here, obviously I have come up with more than I am teasing you with so far. However, I am interested to see what this crowd of intelligent infidels has to contribute to my quest. And I promise to continue my thread and let everyone in on what I have come up with so far. Disclaimer - I ain't got no big answers to lay on anyone - just some interesting theorys and incomplete research. That's more fun anyway - I have learned that research is something most people can do for themselves . . . Maybe together we can all come up with somthing cool.

Thanks,

R. P. McMurphy

Quantum Ninja

Not sure if this is of any relevance, but I think it's pretty neat.

666 in Roman numerals is DCLXVI. That one of each of the numerals except for M.

Quantum Ninja

Oh, and I would also like to point out that only about 15 minutes prior to reading this post, the digital thermometer in my kitchen read 66.6 degrees Fahrenheit (outside temp). It must be an omen.

Doctor X

R P McMurphy:

HA! You think that will save you from the HELLFIRE [Tm.--Ed.] you deserve?!!!!! [!--Ed.]

Anyways, your point about knowing what people thought at the time is imperitive to understanding their religion. It is a major point in NT scholarship. For example, if someone can argue that "Mk would not know a Jew if one bit him in the ass," what does that say about Mk? Did his audience think that way? Was he trying to shift blame . . . et cetera ad nauseum.

I think, in the context, it is clear that Rome is being fingered in Revelations. I also think it more unlikely for a Roman to be able to perform the math--would need to know the Hebrew/Aramaic equivalents. Furthermore, the author is relatively "annonymous"--who is going to track him down?

Also, the concept of "secret knowledge" is very attractive to adherents--it makes them "special." Mk plays on this--showing that the lofty disciples have no idea what is going on, but the much smarter--and better adherent--readers do! So I can imagine that quite a few readers would have fun knowing they had "understanding" and figuring out meaning of 666.

I think the priority of 666 is because it has better textual witnesses. What I find interesting about that is how did the variant arise? Did someone do the math based on the Latin name and figure 666 was wrong?

Of course it fascinates us now because, with imagination, we can make it mean whatever we want--as Toto's link shows. This makes us all "special." That it is an "old prophecy" means some guy who tripped a little to far nearly two thousand years ago was . . . writing . . . for . . . US!!

--J.D.

Amos

Hello Droctor X, and here is a more elaborate version of what I think John was telling us. Note that I do this for my own pleasure and not because I want you to believe in him.

To lead you into my train of thought I should begin to say that we are son of man if and when we are reborn by God. This means that we humans can become one with God and therefore Lord God in much the same way as Jesus of Nazareth himself became one with God. Be reminded here that Jesus was the one who told us to follow him and drink of the cup he drank if we ever want to enter the kingdom of God, etc.

In John 1:13 John makes a distinction between those born of God and those born of carnal desire: "those who were begotten not by blood, nor by carnal desire, nor by man's willing it, but by God."
Clearly, there are two kinds of rebirth available to us and from these two kinds of rebirth will emerge the two different beasts that are described in Rev.13.

In real life evidence of this distinction is found in protestant and Catholic churches, wherein Catholics-- if left on their own-- will be born of God and protestants are reborn of carnal desire (ie, age of accountability, parents, girlfriends, etc). The difference will be that Catholics act like the first beast because they have been reborn from the celestial sea (which must have been an inner determination without the cunning persuasion of a marauding evangelist, or, to put it another way, they are reborn from the netherworld of their subconscious mind which is equal to the celestial sea). They will be charismatic trouble makers in the old church where they will soon feel out of place and leave or are asked to leave. That is how they arrive to be left on their own where they can work out their salvation as "son of man with no place to lie his head." So here then we find that the first beast is an ex Catholic and the seventh sacrament was his rebirth that put the diamonds on the ten commandments to show that he is beyond the law and can not sin (1Jn.3:9). Notice that Rev.13:10 is the affirmation of Jn.21:18 to indicate that rebirth was a non rational involuntary event (as opposed to an "age of accountability" event, for example).

The second beast came out of the old earth and was full of serpentine fire (here described as dragon fire because of its multiplied volume) which is evidence of the old human nature. Notice here that the first beast had surrendered its salemandrine fire because of the new creation it was (instead of 'renewed old' as in "new wine into old skins)." If ever you watch TV evangelists you must notice the urgency with which they speak and if you considder the wars that have been fought in the name of religion you will agree that dragon fire is a good description for the force that motivates them.

Anyway, I must run for now but will add more later because I must pin the antichrist label on them.

Doctor X

Amos:

Before we go on, I need to know one thing: are you arguing an interpretation you believe in or are you arguing the interpretation the writer's believed in?

I understand if you think it the "same thing," but I need to know. To give an example, I, personally, do not think Junior was a god, demi-god, or anything--if he existed. However, the writer Mk did. I would be wrong, from the standpoint of criticism, to try to "make" Mk deny Junior's divinity.

Thus, I am not sure you can connect Jn of the Gospel of John to Jn of Revelations. I am pretty sure that it is accepted by scholarship that they are not the same writers. I am not as sure--but I have yet to see the argument--that Jn of Revelations is responding to, or even knows of, the Gospel of Jn.

Furthermore, the distinction that Jn makes is inherent. Those who are his "group" are, as Junior notes, "ek ano"--εκ ανω--"from above" whilst opponents are "ek kato"--εκ κατω--"from below." There is an inherent difference. Indeed, the "born again" is really a subtle mistranslation: "anothen"--ανωθεν--is more properly translated "from above." The distinction Junior makes for poor Nicodemus is that, no, he can never be saved, despite his best intentions.

There is a very good reason for this "gospel of exclusion"--one Mk practices but with a different rational--Jn must explain to his audience "why" they are "special"--or should consider themselves that way. They are "ek ano"--εκ ανω--"anothen"--ανωθεν--and members of rival and competing groups are not. Though they may drive the chariots with the CD changer as a standard option, they will not be the "special" ones.

Indeed, part of the point of Jn is "discovering" that one is "special"--inherently. This is rather gnostic, and some have argued that Jn is a gnostic gospel--which is a whole discussion entirely.

[ZZzzzzZZZZZZzzzZZZZzz.--Ed.] My point, then, is are you arguing what you believe or what the text "believes?" If the later, I would have to question your use of the Gospel of Jn.

--J.D.

Amos

Well now Doktor X, I think that they are the same and I would take this even further and say that all four Gosples were written by this same 'John the mythmaker' who gave us four different perspectives that describe the same metaphysical event. Matthew was from the Jewish point of view, Mark was from the pagan, Luke from the omniscient and John from the Catholic side because it was soon to become the basis for Catholicism.

So what I think is not important. What counts is what the mythmaker is telling me. Remember here also that this mythmaker was not a believer but a gnostic who knew and therefore could write from different points of view. Matthew was just as gnostic as John because the difference between these two is precisely what makes them gnostic. In other words, the apparent contradictions are there to show that they must not be the same because, for example, what comes across as pleasure to the ego must be a pain to the inner man (Lord God in oppression). So also with the dream of Joseph that was his rational report in Matthew and was the visitation by the angel Gabriel to Mary in omniscient Luke. Mary was the secluded female identity of our soul (she was the woman that was in charge of the TOL as described in Gen.3 ) here brought into the picture to give rebirth to man and take him throught the purgation period and on into heaven.

Let me agree that Jr (Jesus, right?) was not a God but he was the reborn Joseph now in purgatory. Mark would have believed Jr was God because MK. is the pagan perspective who saw things with hyletic vision. So they were the outsiders looking on and reporting what they saw in the unfolding of the myth. Notice that MK begins with John the Baptist because nothing was visible to outsiders before that.

Of course I am not interested in what scholars think because I am the reader now reporting what I read.

"Ek ano" and "ek kato" sounds about rigth because that is where the difference lies between rebirth from Mary and rebirth from Eve. Both indeed are for real but Eve will give us a scorpion because she is also from this generation and cannot deliver anything beyond that. Mary is from the old incarnate mind and is the source for our living water. Eve is Magdalene in the Gospels.

What I like most about your response, is that these rival groups, (those "ek kato's") indeed "drive chariots" (nice allegory) because they have been born again but apparently are not the chosen ones because they can't seem to work out their own salvation and must die before anything good is supposed to happen to them. Unlike the ek ano's who spend only 40 months in the desert they will spend 40 years in the desert and therefore will die nonetheless (just as the children of Israel did because they were misled into the promised land before Gods time).

It gets better as we go on because the real life evidence of this mark of the beast is described in Rev. 14:6 where they are reported to "soar through midheaven" on neetly organized bundles of scriptures that justifies their sola scriptura salvation. From this lofty position they shout to the world below that they must repent and believe because the time is near. The second mark is that they see the Catholic Church as the antichrist and the third evidence is that they warn others against the mark of the beast that they themselves so proudly display.

Good for now and more to follow.

BTW, I took some Greek but could never remember the alphabeth so I had to quit.