Biblical Evil #2: Paul, the (666) Beast of Revelation

The more I came to learn about Paul, and how he hijacked the Jewish religious sect started by Jesus, and the enmity between Paul and Jesus’ brother James, who succeeded him as leader of the early Jewish Jerusalem Church, the more I came to believe he was the Beast of Revelation, the number of whose name is six-hundred, threescore and six (improperly presented as the Arabic 666).

Evidence:
The “Spouter of Lying” was common phrase used in the Dead Sea Scrolls as was the “Teacher of Righteousness”, which are representative of Paul and Jesus brother James, respectively.

The enmity between Paul and James, while smoothed over as much as possible, is evident. James (as was Jesus), was a pious Jew who revered poverty and was strictly observant of Jewish law. Paul, however, had a very laid back attitude toward the law (eating meat sacrificed to idols, circumcision etc.) and chose what to keep from Judaism strictly as a matter of expediency. But the worst of it was how Paul turned Jesus from the messiah to the divine “Son of God”, who was born to a virgin, and died as a human sacrifice in substitution for repentance for our sins, was seen as blasphemy.

One of the worst blasphemies was the ritual, cannibalistic rite of the Last Supper or Eucharist. Such a rite, eating human flesh and drinking human blood, symbolic or otherwise, would have been anathema to Jews, but it (and the resurrection) sold Paul’s version of “Christianity” to a lot of pagan gentiles.

While there is no direct proof, it is very likely that Paul skimmed off money he’d collected to be sent back to the Jerusalem Church, and may have even used it to purchase his Roman citizenship. This would have been a very sore spot and source of outrage against Paul.

Paul is warned by James against the Jews (the ones from Asia-Minor who know him best) for what he’s done. In Acts 21: 20-22 Paul is subsequently dragged out of the temple and is saved by a Roman when he revealed his Roman citizenship. He claims to be a Roman citizen from birth, but then why did he not bring that up when he was beaten 3 times and stoned in Asia-Minor as he reported in 2 Cor 11:25.

Paul, at one point, claims to be a Pharisee. But a Pharisee would never have acted as a violent strong arm man for the Sanhedrin as he did against the early Jewish-Christians before his “conversion”.

The number of the name of the beast from revelation has a couple of meanings. First, the number is six-hundred threescore and six (not the Arabic numerals 666) which is the number of the Beast’s name. This exact number occurs in one other place in the Bible–it is the number of the talents of Gold that came to King Solomon. This could not be coincidence and is almost certainly a slam at Paul’s (ill-gotten) wealth. Also, those Jewish-Christians revered poverty, and were probably early Ebionites (literally “the poor ones”).

A modern day group of Jewish-Christians who call themselves Ebionites, present a very straightforward case that the number of the beast, where numbers equate to letters (Gematria **), translates to Tarsus, where Paul was from. This combined with its connection to wealth, was likely all that was needed to “let him who has wisdom, understand”. It would have been obvious to those first century Jewish-Christians/Ebionites.
ebionite.org/www.htm

**–The site doesn’t explain, but it is found in Wikipedia, that “In gematria, Mem (ref. in Wiki) represents the number 40. Its final form represents 600 but this is rarely used, Tav and Resh (400+200) being used instead.” You’ll understand better what this is about when you go to the linked site.

It’s amazing what you can read on the 'net.

Not nearly as amazing as what you read in the Bible.

That’s just more inconsequential 'net garble- unless a respected, published scholar (and not a popular author whose opinion is found only in paperback) can be quoted who supports this idea.

As the poker player says, the cards play themselves, meaning, when you have 4 of a kind when you thought you only laid down 2 pair, what you played is still a winner. Put another way, the Truth speaks for itself. Or even another way, as Gandhi said, “The Truth is a majority of one”. And as he also said " ‘God is Truth’, though he would later change that statement to ‘Truth is God’ "–which is the same thing. (Where else have we heard that? :unamused:) Also, Jesus didn’t write anything…either. :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: Too bad he didn’t have the Internet, then we might have his unedited words.

What you support is the tyranny of the elitist scholar, hog-tied to tenure or other even more lucrative, or destructive, pressures to pour words into a mold and reason down the drain. Modern philosophy is much more about personalities than reasonable content and the inevitable psychobabble.

However, just saying you have spoken the truth doesn’t mean jack around here. :wink:

I suspect that the joke may be on us, for taking any of it seriously. :smiley:

Which is why I said that the Truth speaks for itself. I guess since you didn’t mention it that you agree that Truth can come only from respected (by who?) published (hard bound only) scholars (possessors of knowledge) who are never wrong; as opposed to an unknown, paperback writer/unpublished blogger who could not possibly be right. (I suspect you don’t believe that, but it’s odd that you ignored it while making the comment you did.)

“And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.” Luke 13:30 (And some in the middle who shall remain.)

Second in a series of responses containing no response (other than sarcasm)–merely dismissing the OP out-of-hand without any pertinent comment because you disagree with it–erroneously I must assume. Truly, the joke is on you, but it isn’t mine.

Speculation about the Book of Revelation is endless. In many cases, the symbols lack sufficient specificity for positive identification. But even if you were right, so what? You don’t believe in divine revelation. So, all you would have is the author’s opinion. He could have spared us all the trouble by saying unequivocally, “I don’t like Paul.”

Of course is isn’t divine revelation. Revelation is the way they said it back then when the subject matter was God and religion–and claim it is a revelation from God. Of course you’re right about it not being absolutely identifiable with Paul, but it fits with the other evidence, all showing that there’s no doubt about the enmity between him and the “Ebionites” or early Jewish Christians, which is damning of modern “Christianity”, particularly the specious supernatural aspects of it.

What evidence do you have that the author of Revlation was an Ebionite? Do the Ebionites expect Jesus to return as the “Son of Man” of the book of Daniel in “power and glory”? If not, than the author of revelation was no Ebionite.

All the Jewish sects at the time, except for the Sadducees and Pharisees, glorified poverty to one degree or another, but the Ebionites actually incorporated it into their name. Also, there’s the probability that Paul acquired his wealth, strike one, by bilking it out of them, strike two, and using it to purchase his Roman Citizenship, strike three, harking back to the 666 connection to wealth, strike 4.

Without checking, I believe they did use such imagery, much as they did with Elijah. “Coming with the clouds with glory.” Jesus’ expected return was within their generation, which didn’t pan out. And I’m not advocating for an Ebionite or Jesus’ follower’s perspective, only that they weren’t believers in the tenet’s of modern Christianity that Paul invented. Also, the lines between the minor sects in Israel such as the Ebionites, Nazarenes and Essenes at the time weren’t that well drawn.

Isn’t it odd, it took two thousand years and free internet connection to discover all this.

Not odd at all. The Internet has made it much easier to find information, much faster, and with worldwide dissemination. But books are still my core sources, books that wouldn’t have be permitted, by authors who would have be ostracized, or worse. But one of my best book sources, the Bible, is the best argument against itself, which is what I’m trying to point out with these Biblical Evil posts. Paul as the mythmaking founder of Christianity (Paulism) is embedded in the Bible, but much harder to expose without the Internet, a free press, and a less oppressive public.

In any case, the Truth speaks for itself. Btw, published scholars are welcome and free to come here where discussion is civil, and express their expertise if it be such. (I think they do more than they let on, which is understandable.)

I don’t see how any of this supports the notion that author of the book of Revelation was an Ebionite.

Not quite what I meant. :wink:

I don’t care if any idea is brought about by a scholar or official of some kind; most of those ideas are slowly arriving variations of ideas someone without all the badges has thought on their own before them anyway; whether academia is aware of that or not.

At any rate, I just meant that just asserting that something is the truth doesn’t make it have any more or less merit than nothing being said at all; in regards to if it is a truth or not.

Personally, I’d say it’s a bit to chew to ask me to accept the idea that somewhere back in the Torah a numerical value of note was written down that accomplishes the task of lining up perfectly with a numerical to alphabetic translation for the city of Tarsus in a region (Turkey) over 400 miles away to the north west and of no concern during the pre-Maccabean-Levite reign, Maccabean reign, nor the pre-Roman Judah reign, for the purposes of pointing out the dislike of a man that would be of noteworth some 500 years after the general authorship of the texts you are referring to (Kings and Chronicles).

That said…the score count is wrong, or I am confused about what part you are referring to.
If you are talking about 2 Chronicles 9:9, or 1 Kings 10:10, then the count is one hundred and twenty.

מֵאָה - Hundred
עֶשְׂרִים - Twenty

I’m not quite sure where the ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ (six hundred sixty six; 666) comes in among עֶשְׂרִים מֵאָה (hundred twenty)?

That’s just the first thing that strikes me.

Forget Ebionite then. The issue is the enmity between the author and Paul, which was shared by the early Jewish-Christians as was also shown in the Dead Sea Scrolls and more directly, in other books of the Bible itself.

I agree that it’s a coincidence. But to me it was a fortuitous one, and the author certainly thought it was more than a coincidence that the same set of numbers both were a biblical reference to wealth, and by Gematria, the number of “Tarsus”. It is apparently undeniable that it is both.

The references are 2 Chronicles 9:13 and 1 Kings 10:14–word for word with Revelation**.

**In the King James version only, although the American Standard version replaces threescore it uses in the OT with sixty in Revelation (?). The other versions butcher it to varying degrees, going from six hundred and sixty-six to 666 and even 616. One translates the OT reference as 25 tons.

Hmmmm. Why d’you suppose the New KJV changed it to “666”?

The author of the Book of Revelation likely used cryptic symbolism to conceal subversive meanings which would provoke the Romans to destroy the document and lead to persecution of Christians. That would be necessary if the Beast refers to a Roman Emperor but not if it refers to Paul. Is your only basis for claiming enmity between the author of Revelation and Paul this tenuous interpretation of the meaning of the “Beast”?

Alright, that makes more sense then.

The KJV is a translation that heavily deviates from the Greek text and makes many known translation errors.

The Greek is pretty clear that it’s six hundred sixty six.
ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ

Typically speaking, if someone banks on one translation of the KJV for a case, I have a very difficult time accepting the premise as the KJV was quite a politically fueled translation that was done in quite erroneous methods with lesser understanding of the anthropological context than we have today, and based mostly off of previous translations rather than working from manuscripts directly.

I get that Paul carries with him many questionable merits and motives, and I think that’s a merited discussion, but I think equating a dislike of him to the manners you have outlined here is equally as questionable.
We don’t even need this to draw an examination upon Paul in my opinion.
This seems to me to just be such a stretch.