Biblical problematic passages--Vol 3: 666

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Rev 13:18 “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number [is] Six hundred threescore [and] six.”

First, the number should remain as it is given here, six hundred threescore and six, not 666 as so many translations make it. Revelation was written long before Arabic numerals and the Roman numeral for the number would be DCLXVI, which would be meaningless. It could also be given as six hundred and sixty six.

The point is that much NT prophesy is based on OT references, and this is no exception. Here, the reverence is to two identical OT passages, I Kings 10:14 & II Chron. 9:13, “Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold”, translated in most modern versions as six hundred and sixty six", but it’s the numerology in the original Hebrew that’s the key.

Revelation has two targets in this passage, a general one represented by the wealth of Solomon, (Jesus and John the Baptizer were ascetic Jews who rejected wealth which most will agree with), but the other, specific target, was Paul. The enmity between Paul and the Jerusalem Church led by Jesus brother James is only touched on in the NT. Revelation had to have been written by a early Christian Jew who believed, as I think most of them did, that Paul was corrupting what Jesus had started.

This goes a lot deeper than this format will allow exploring, but I’m not the only one who believes this way. Searching the Internet for others who did, that Paul was the beast (later morphed into the anti-Christ), I found that modern Jewish Ebionites believed the same thing, and their site even shows how the Hebrew numbers are the vowel-less (as Hebrew is) equivalent for Tarsus.

Read for yourself
http://www.ebionite.org/www.htm

2

I saw a program on the history channel which conjectured ‘666’ referred to a Roman emperor. I think Nero is most commonly named.

3

Yeah, but that’s based on a very questionable interpretation of the number of the beast being the Roman numerals 666, or an alternative “translation” 616. 8-[

4

Yeah, I looked over the page on almighty wikipedia. I see that they do stretch it a bit to get Roman emperors.

I like the interpretations for the different popes, though

5

Yeah, but they were just evil. Paul invented a religion that was easily marketable to the pagans because it employed a lot of pagan mythology while at the same time incorporating the authority of a messiah from the Jewish people who had been resurrected. Such monumental arrogance and guile along with how he corrupted Judaism earned the undying hostility of the early Jerusalem Christian Church. It is even likely that he skimmed money from the coffers of his churches in Asia Minor that he was collecting to send back to Jerusalem and used it to buy his Roman citizenship (although he claims to be born a citizen)–which, ironically, saved him from the angry (Jewish Christian?) mob in Jerusalem. He is almost certainly the “Spouter of Lies” in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Christianity should rightly be called Paulism.

6

Unlike the Paine of old you seem to have a penchant for esoterica. What, may I ask, were the lies that Paul spouted?

7

Just because something is known by a group or individual doesn’t mean that knowledge is limited to them, nor is it a mystery religion to be held in confidence by them. Unlike Paine of old, I, we, have a lot more knowledge available to us–that many continue ever more futilely to continue to ignore.

Most of those are subjects of future volumes, mostly concerning Jewish law for the convenience of recruiting pagans. Whatever the early James’ Jerusalem Church believed about the conversion of gentiles, they believed that they should at least adhere to the commandments given to Noah (Gen 9:4-7). The interpretation of that passage has been argued in the past by Jews, but something close to the rabbinical 7 Laws of Noah would have been close. (BTW, those were prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, fornication, murder, robbery, eating limbs cut from a live animal and a command to set up a system of justice. Exactly what Jesus, James or their followers held to isn’t completely certain, but we can get an idea from the arguments between Paul and James and Paul’s arguments in his letters (Peter was a wuss).

I believe the thing that broke the camel’s back in this highly strained relationship was Paul’s invention of the Eucharist. That will be the subject of Vol. IV.

You asked and I’ve answered in a sincere and forthright manner with no emotional appeal. I hope at least that will be noticed.

8

The conflicts between James and Paul on matters of Jewish law and how to treat the Gentiles is not only a matter of Church tradition, but it’s actually described in the New Testament. Yeah, there was a disagreement, and the concensus that was come to is largely what produced the Church we see today. And what of it? No matter how it was settled, there’d be skeptics today arbitarily casting aspersions and saying it should have been settled the other way.
It’s laughable that a materialist would be weighing in on the dispute between Paul’s New Covenant and rabbinic law. What possible stake could you have in a debate like that, other than to side with whatever the modern Church isn’t so you can throw rocks?
Yes, one way that it could have gone is that Christianity could have adhered to Mosaic law and, for example, demanded that gentile followers be circumcized. In all likelihood Christianity would have been absorbed as a sort of post-messianic sect of Judaism and ultimately gone extinct long before now. That’s not how it turned out. So?

9

It was never settled, and there was no consensus. James was murdered c. 62 CE on the orders of the High Priest, and the Jerusalem church was scattered along with the rest of the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE–leaving Paul and his followers alone on the field. The remaining differing sects of “Christianity” were subsumed during the following 300+ years which culminated in the arbitrary selection of (and exclusion from) the the books of the Biblical canon we have now.

It is amazing the conclusions that some come to about what I am, and yet never ask. I wonder where you learned to do that? I have so far denied in these forums being a materialist or a humanist.

10

You see, this is why your points are no argument against Christianity, and no problem for the Christian. The New Testament specifically describes Paul meeting with the other apostles and coming to an agreement about how to handle Gentiles who were prospective Christians. This was around the year 49, by the way. The repression of the Gnostics, Arians, and etc. were all done for solid reasons on the consensus of the bishops, and the same goes for the selection of Biblical canon, considering we don’t have any examples of non-canon scriptures that even modern scholars take seriously as being old enough to be reliable. But to you, passages that talk about Paul meeting James and Peter are no doubt tainted somehow, and the elimination of heresey and selection of the canon are ‘arbitrary’. Why? Because you’re on a mission. I realize it all seems very convincing to you, but history doesn’t respect your crusade, and so, the Christian has no reason to be moved by your selective and bias coloring of history. A Christian who had never been exposed to a skeptic before might be troubled by your words, but a little investigation of their own would soon put them to rest.

You described yourself as one providing answers for people who could no longer accept the existence of the supernatural. If that doesn’t make you a materialist, then I guessed wrong. Tut tut on me, make as big a deal of it as you choose.

11

No problem. I’m not going to reject a teaching just because it comes from a marginal group and is not widely accepted. However, “what is known” is in question. You are citing New Testament writings as a source. In addition to Paul’s writing on the Eucharist in I Corinthians 11:23-25 we have the following passges in the synoptic gospels:

Matthew 26:26-28
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:22-24
22And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
23And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:17-20
17And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

If you take the Eucharist to be Paul’s “invention” what do you make of those passages?

12

They were backed in, especially in Luke, him being a disciple of Paul. The evidence for that is indirect, but I’ll also show that Paul revealed his invention in the Chronicles 11 passage. Soon as I have time.

13

I think you mean Corinthians not Chronicles. Yes, I’m curious what source of evidence you have about the life of Jesus is more authoritative than the synoptic gospels.

14

Chronicles, Corinthians…they both start with a C.