666 ... the number of the beast ...

[ananda]

Ὧδε ἡ σοφία ἐστίν ὁ ἔχων τὸν νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ χξς - Rev 13:18 - Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding calculate the arithmetic of the beast: for it is the arithmetic of a man; and his number is Six hundred sixty six.

We can glean the following characteristics of "the beast" from this one passage:

1. It is a man (or woman); it was likely in reference to a man as this beast operated as some sort of great leader;
2. This man was a contemporary of the Apostle John in the first century (ἐστίν is in the Greek present indicative which refers to the English present tense from John's perspective);
3. The man's identity is connected with "666";
4. One can calculate the arithmetic of the number "666".

How can one "calculate the arithmetic"? Hebrew Gematria - each of the 22 letters of the Hebrew aleph-bet have a corresponding number. Generally speaking, we would choose the smallest number of letters which would add up to a specific gematria number. The highest number is 400, so that letter is used first Tau(T). Next, we would add 200 to get 600; that letter is Resh(R). Samech(S) is 60 to get 660. Finally, Vav(V/U) is 6 to end up with 666.

TRSU would be prounounced TaRSU ... sounds like a reference to "Tarsus" to me!

 

[ptomwebster]

The problem is you do not know where to start counting.

 

[ananda]

The problem is you do not know where to start counting.

Ad hominem attacks ... really? Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Defensor Christi]

I saw a similiar trick using Ronald Reagan...I am not impressed with this type of thing

 

[drstevej]

"."

 

[drstevej]

1. It is a man (or woman); it was likely in reference to a man as this beast operated as some sort of great leader;

Women can not be great leaders?

2. This man was a contemporary of the Apostle John in the first century (ἐστίν is in the Greek present indicative which refers to the English present tense from John's perspective);

You are unfamiliar with the Greek futuristic present?

G) {FUTURISTIC PRESENT

The present tense is sometimes used for confident assertions about what is going to take place in the future. The event, although it has not yet occurred, is looked upon as so certain that it is thought of as already occurring. The futuristic present is often used in prophecies. A test for this use is the ability to translate the Greek present with an English future, though the future, will not always be used in the translation.}

Tenses : Koine Greek And Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

4. One can calculate the arithmetic of the number "666".
TRSU would be prounounced TaRSU ... sounds like a reference to "Tarsus" to me!

Ταρσεύς - you omitted an "S" to get at your pre-determined result. Bad methodology.


This thread is done.

 

[ananda]

I saw a similiar trick using Ronald Reagan...I am not impressed with this type of thing

John was clearly not using English.

 

[ananda]

Women can not be great leaders?

Not in John's time.

You are unfamiliar with the Greek futuristic present? Tenses : Koine Greek And Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

The Greek present tense can refer to the future unless it is in the indicative mood, of which ἐστίν is. Present tense + indicative mood = English present tense, and excludes a future origin. The event indicated by ἐστίν is ongoing in the present in John's time. You might wish to reexamine your Greek.

Ταρσεύς - you omitted an "S" to get at your pre-determined result. Bad methodology.

I am not referring to the Greek, but the Hebrew.

This thread is done.

Think again.

 

[ptomwebster]

You are calculating for the wrong beast so you will have already worshipped the first one.

 

[ananda]

You are calculating for the wrong beast so you will have already worshipped the first one.

I don't seem to recall mentioning the name of the "beast". Perhaps you will share whom you are thinking of?

 

[Ripheus27]

Is the idea of the OP that Paul of Tarsus was the Beast? It's an interesting idea, to say the least (though on my less-sympathetic-towards-the-guy days, I'd still consider him more likely the False Prophet, maybe).

 

[ChetSinger]

Some texts have 616 instead of 666. How does that work out for your theory?

 

[ananda]

Is the idea of the OP that Paul of Tarsus was the Beast? It's an interesting idea, to say the least (though on my less-sympathetic-towards-the-guy days, I'd still consider him more likely the False Prophet, maybe).

You said it, not me

The beast, as described in Daniel, would try to change and transform YHWH's Sacred Days, and His Laws. Does the shoe fit?

 

[ananda]

Some texts have 616 instead of 666. How does that work out for your theory?

Gematria, if 616, would result in Tau-Resh-Yud-Vav (TRYU).

 

[ChetSinger]

Does anyone else promote this interpretation?

 

[drstevej]

668 is the next door neighbor of the Beast
666i - BMW of the Beast
666k - Retirement plan of the Beast
DSM-666 (revised) - Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the Beast

 

[ananda]

Does anyone else promote this interpretation?

Some Gnostics may agree with me, in the sense that they might also recognize a struggle between the Johannine pro-Torah disciples against the Pauline anti-Torah disciples.

In that way, we see Revelation as written against Paul; thus I reject Paul, and they might reject Revelation.

 

[RevelationTestament]

V 5
I 1
C 100
A 0
R 0
I 1
U 5
S 0

F 0
I 1
L 50
I 1
I 1

D 500
E 0
i 1
666

 

[Ripheus27]

You said it, not me

The beast, as described in Daniel, would try to change and transform YHWH's Sacred Days, and His Laws. Does the shoe fit?

When I first found out about Paul, I got a pretty bad feeling about the guy. Later, Ishraqiyun (a member of this forum) helped me see Paul's writings in a less invidious light. But I'm still sympathetic to the idea that Paul's interpretation of Christ's teachings was at least quite imperfect, possibly even outright corrupt.

 

[ananda]

When I first found out about Paul, I got a pretty bad feeling about the guy. Later, Ishraqiyun (a member of this forum) helped me see Paul's writings in a less invidious light. But I'm still sympathetic to the idea that Paul's interpretation of Christ's teachings was at least quite imperfect, possibly even outright corrupt.

Thank you for your testimony. I myself moved from evangelical-mainstream Christianity to non-Pauline Messianism after learning what I've learned about Paul. My last three years have been dedicated to this as my main subject of study