The Name Jesus = 666?

[Doctor X]

Thanks!

Just lurking.

--J.D.

 

[Dancing David]

Hey, did you know that The Name Jesus = 666? Sure it does. All you have to do is take the numerical value of the letters in His name and add them together (10 + 5 + 19 + 21 + 19), in which case you get 74 which, when multiplied by 9, you get 666!

Hmm, what could it possibly mean?

I means that you sure didn't spell it in hebrai, that's for sure< ithink hat jesus is yeshua, yod, shin, aleph,
yod is the tenth letter, shin is the 21 and aleph is the first. So you get 10+21+1=32!

Iachuss, in hebrai letters are alos numbers anyhow, remeber when I said you should go read up on the kabbalah, yod is ten, shin is 300 and aleph is 1. So Y-SH-A is 311.

If that is the way it is spelled.

SUM if transliterated to hebrai is 60+6+600= I AM in latin.

 

[Piscivore]

Oh well, it's too bad you had to add the additional step. So, according to Occam's Razor, mine is better.

from Wikipedia

When the name "Nero Caesar" is spelled with Hebrew letters as ???? ??? (NRON QSR) Each letter has a corresponding numerical value. N=50,R=200,O=6 N=50,Q=100,S=60,R=200, resulting in the sum of 666.

Some Greek manuscripts of Revelation have a different number. Here the number is not 666, but 616. If Nero is alternatively spelled as NRO instead of NRON you get 616; NRON minus N(=50).

Well, this method eliminates your "additional step" of multiplying by nine, and has the benefit of being keyed of the original language as well as accounting for the two different numbers. So, by your application of "Occam's Razor", it MUST be correct, right?

 

[Iacchus]

There are Five Possible Choices [PBUT--Ed.]. See above.

The case does not exclude any of the choices. You are, of course, free to argue for one or more of the choices.

What I believe is irrelevant.

Nevertheless, you have failed to address the question.

--J.D.

And watch out for "he" who defines the choices.

 

[Iacchus]

from Wikipedia


Well, this method eliminates your "additional step" of multiplying by nine, and has the benefit of being keyed of the original language as well as accounting for the two different numbers. So, by your application of "Occam's Razor", it MUST be correct, right?

But the thing I don't understand is how you derived your numbers? There must have been something additionally involved somewhere? Can you explain to me how the number 50 for example, equates with the letter "N?"

 

[Doctor X]

And watch out for "he" who defines the choices.

Argumentum ad baculum et non sequitur.

A gentleman would answer the question or concede inability to justify your claims.

--J.D.

 

[evildave]

But the thing I don't understand is how you derived your numbers? There must have been something additionally involved somewhere? Can you explain to me how the number 50 for example, equates with the letter "N?"

Certainly: Any letter could be defined to have any numeric value that you like.

SPORK=666
FOON=666
Jesus=666

For instance, in ASCII, A=65 and a=97.

The order of A=1, B=2, etc. could be any numeric value that you care to assign.

Therefore, acbxydfg... is as valid as abcdefg... when assigning numeric values.

 

[Doctor X]

Indeed.

Piscavore cites a source that uses the values that were assigned to the letters at the time of composition.

Some scholars argue based on dating that it is not actually Nero but Dominitian with the reference to "Nero" being understood.

--J.D.

 

[Piscivore]

But the thing I don't understand is how you derived your numbers? There must have been something additionally involved somewhere? Can you explain to me how the number 50 for example, equates with the letter "N?"

From the same source:

The system of Hebrew numerals is a quasi-decimal alphabetic numeral system using the letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

In this system, there was no notation for zero, and the numeric values for individual letters are added together. Each unit (1, 2, ..., 9) is assigned a separate letter, each tens (10, 20, ..., 90) a separate letter, and each hundreds (100, 200, ..., 900) a separate letter. Gematria (Jewish numerology) uses these transformations extensively.

 

[Iacchus]

Certainly: Any letter could be defined to have any numeric value that you like.

SPORK=666
FOON=666
Jesus=666

For instance, in ASCII, A=65 and a=97.

The order of A=1, B=2, etc. could be any numeric value that you care to assign.

Therefore, acbxydfg... is as valid as abcdefg... when assigning numeric values.

And why can't we stick with those known resources which are readily available, such as English and the decimal system? Are you suggesting this is a gross violation of Occam's Razor?

 

[Iacchus]

But the thing I don't understand is how you derived your numbers? There must have been something additionally involved somewhere? Can you explain to me how the number 50 for example, equates with the letter "N?"

From the same source:

The system of Hebrew numerals is a quasi-decimal alphabetic numeral system using the letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

In this system, there was no notation for zero, and the numeric values for individual letters are added together. Each unit (1, 2, ..., 9) is assigned a separate letter, each tens (10, 20, ..., 90) a separate letter, and each hundreds (100, 200, ..., 900) a separate letter. Gematria (Jewish numerology) uses these transformations extensively.

However, I'm totally unaware of the system, and neither is it making much sense at this point. So perhaps Occam's Razor suggests that I work with those materials which are readily available and immediately at hand?... Unless of course one is versed in obscurity, right?

 

[Iacchus]

Some scholars argue based on dating that it is not actually Nero but Dominitian with the reference to "Nero" being understood.

--J.D.

In other words an additional assumption, right?

 

[Kimpatsu]

Second, why are you assuming that modern English is the absolute languaje of God or numerology?

Because we British are born closest to god, in his image, and are made to rule over the French. The speaking of English is to be made compulsory throughout the EU. French and Spanish are to be abolished as irrelevancies. The colonies are also to be returned, and the Great British Empire will once more hold sway over all the world, in accordance with god's plan.
Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time for my medication.

 

[Doctor X]

"Ocham's Razor" would suggest he actually learn something about the subject rather than blather and waste time.

--J.D.

 

[Kimpatsu]

"Ocham's Razor" would suggest he actually learn something about the subject rather than blather and waste time.

--J.D.

Yes, razor blades in tea would be rather dangerous...

 

[Piscivore]

However, I'm totally unaware of the system, and neither is it making much sense at this point. So perhaps Occam's Razor suggests that I work with those materials which are readily available and immediately at hand?... Unless of course one is versed in obscurity, right?

"Occam's Razor" advises not to add unecessary element to a hypothesis- not to pare it down to absurdity.

"Obsurity" is relative to one's education - simply because one is ignorant of certain facts does not indicate the world at large is so hampered. Ignorance is a pretty poor defence of one's arguments. If one does not understand how to use a timing light, should one then tune ones car with a hammer?

But very well- let us consider your assertion on its merits:

At the time that Revelations was written, "English" didn't exist:

West Germanic invaders from Jutland and southern Denmark: the Angles (whose name is the source of the words England and English), Saxons, and Jutes, began populating the British Isles in the fifth and sixth centuries AD. They spoke a mutually intelligible language, similar to modern Frisian--the language of northeastern region of the Netherlands--that is called Old English.

At the time of the Reformation, the bible in use at that time was the Vulgate- in Latin, not English. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Adopted by several writers in the fifth century, it came into more general use in the sixth. At least the Spanish churches employed it in the seventh century, and in the ninth it was found in practically the whole Roman Church. Its title "Vulgate", indicating its common use, and belonging to the Old Latin until the seventh century, was firmly established in the thirteenth. In the sixteenth the Council of Trent declared it the authentic version of the Church.

Some key dates:
Luther posts his "Ninety-five Theses": 31 October, 1517
Luther works on his German translation of the Vulgate: 1522 - 1545
England breaks with Rome: 1534
Tyndale burned for printing the first English version of the NT: 1536
First edition of the Authorized Version (King James' Bible"): 1611

There did exist English translations as early as the eighth century, but none were in common use- even the Authorized Version carried an inscription that is was to be used in churches only.

Let's look at the name "Jesus" then, in the relevant languages. Again from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
{quote] The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation."
... [/quote]

In Hebrew, it is Yeshua, Yehoshua, Jeshua, Joshua, or Jehoshua - and these are just the English transliterations. Since Hebrew didn't use vowels when written, it is hard to get a consistent spelling. I cannot work out the Hebrew letters, so I cannot figure out the numbers, but I doubt it will add up the same as Nero did.

Here is a guy who thinks like you, only he came to vastly different conclusions using numerology on the Greek Iesous.

Jesus' name in Latin is Iesus , or sometimes Ihesus- commonly shortened to IHS.

Luther's German NT spells it "Jhesum".

Tyndale's New Testament (1526) spells it "Iusus" - but note the "s" in the centre is represented in the text by a letter that no longer exists in English.

And just to hammer the point home, The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with me:

The ten horns are commonly explained as the vassal rulers under the supremacy of Rome. They are described as kings (basileis), here to be taken in a wider sense, that they are not real kings, but received power to rule with the beast. Their power, moreover, is but for one hour, signifying its short duration and instability (xvii, 17). The Seer has marked the beast with the number 666. His purpose was that by this number people may know it. He that has understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and his number is six hundred and sixty-six. A human number, i.e. intelligible by the common rules of investigation. We have here an instance of Jewish gematria. Its object is to conceal a name by substituting for it a cipher of equal numerical value to the letters composing it. For a long time interpreters tried to decipher the number 666 by means of the Greek alphabet, e.g. Irenæus, "Adv. Haer.", V, 33. Their efforts have yielded no satisfactory result. Better success has been obtained by using the Hebrew alphabet. Many scholars have come to the conclusion that Nero is meant. For when the name "Nero Caesar" is spelled with Hebrew letters, it yields the cipher 666.

Cheers.

 

[Navigator]

Well if you take the standard English Alphabet and give A the value of 1 and B the value of 2...etc

The Name "Jesus" and "Lucifer" add up to the same number.

So if you took this a little bit deeper, and were wanting to look for things to do with the number 6...you could assign A=6 B=12 C=18 etc....

Then English words/phrases could be sorted into numerical values and the data, if nothing else, will be interesting...

I don;t know if it would work with other languages, but don;t see why it shouldn't.

Anyhoo...based on the fact that Language is sound and that written language is code or symbol for those sounds, maybe sound has a mathematical basis?

Here is some interesting data based upon the A=6 coding, to do with the number 666

________________________________________________

See The Way
Dark Matter
Shine Light
Your Life
Look Into
Dedicated Friend
Human Love
One Power
Enjoy Self
Change Children
Perfect Change
God Creation
Free Power
Confessing
Illusion
Santa Claus
One Christ

Not saying that this data signifies anything in particular.
But as far as data goes, I find it interesting.

Only...I guess the fact that Lucifer and Jesus add up to the same numeric value (in the case of A=6...that number is 444) and like with "One Christ" and "God Creation" could be a bit of a bad taste in some folks mouths.

*Shrug*

 

[Iacchus]

Weren't both Jesus and Lucifer equated with the morning star? It seems like I read something like that in the Bible somewhere? ...

Also, in this respect, might it suggest Lucifer is a false representation of Jesus, in which case this numerology thing, specifically the number 666, would still apply?

 

[Iacchus]

"Occam's Razor" advises not to add unecessary element to a hypothesis- not to pare it down to absurdity.

"Obsurity" is relative to one's education - simply because one is ignorant of certain facts does not indicate the world at large is so hampered. Ignorance is a pretty poor defence of one's arguments. If one does not understand how to use a timing light, should one then tune ones car with a hammer?

But very well- let us consider your assertion on its merits:

At the time that Revelations was written, "English" didn't exist:

So, do you realize that both Christianity and the English language were not prevalent at the time of Zoroastrianism? And yet here it is both seem to be perfectly palatable for most people's use ... except for those who have a bit of distaste for religion of course.

So how do we in fact know that both aren't some fulfillment of Zoroastrianism in that sense? Indeed, everyone keeps claiming how much Christianity is a bastardization from so many other sources, most notably Zoroastrianism, and yet how can we say that the English language fares altogether differently in that respect? We certainly can't claim that it's not without its use can we? Otherwise we'd all have to shut our computers down.

 

[Navigator]

1:Weren't both Jesus and Lucifer equated with the morning star? It seems like I read something like that in the Bible somewhere? ...

2:Also, in this respect, might it suggest Lucifer is a representation of Jesus, in which case this numerology thing, specifically the number 666, would still apply?

1: I dont know...I was just doing the numbers...what does it matter?
Maybe 'they' are aspects of each other?

2; If this is the case, then equally Jesus must be the false representation of Lucifer...whichever...its all duality and I dont personally believe the Universe is Dualstic in nature...just appears to be.

There are so many versions of "Jesus" anyhoo...I will stick to the numbers and let others argue over the details.