666

[ARC150]

Caveat:
This posting is in response to a musing generated by a closed topic...I realize that my creation of a topic that may be seen as a continuation of something deemed "close-worthy" is improper -- for this, I apologize.

But....

I want to throw this out:

The orgins of "666" are clandestine as far as I know...but what of this:

Roman enumeration lends the following number-classes:

I = 1
V = 5
X = 10
L = 50
C = 100
D = 500

Add those up and you get DCLXVI
Add those up and you get 666

To my mind, the origins of the 666 number are tantamount to aliteration (in a sense).

***
Anyone ever come across this idea?
(Difficulty: No Entombed)

 

[speed]

Caveat:
This posting is in response to a musing generated by a closed topic...I realize that my creation of a topic that may be seen as a continuation of something deemed "close-worthy" is improper -- for this, I apologize.

But....

I want to throw this out:

The orgins of "666" are clandestine as far as I know...but what of this:

Roman enumeration lends the following number-classes:

I = 1
V = 5
X = 10
L = 50
C = 100
D = 500

Add those up and you get DCLXVI
Add those up and you get 666

To my mind, the origins of the 666 number are tantamount to aliteration (in a sense).

***
Anyone ever come across this idea?
(Difficulty: No Entombed)

I didnt know that actually. It makes sense now.

 

[ARC150]

I didnt know that actually. It makes sense now.

Just something that I stumbled upon...I imagine someone else has already documented this...but I have never come across such a reference.

 

[speed]

Just something that I stumbled upon...I imagine someone else has already documented this...but I have never come across such a reference.

So, the Jews inferred the Romans were Satan, and perhaps the Roman way of government--money, pragmatism, engineering, trade (not spirituality) that were all related to math and numbers--was thus the ultimate evil? well there is the whole Kabbala nonsense with the Jews, so I dont know if thats an entirely apt conclusion.

But this makes much sense still--if the Romans symbolized satan I mean. Essentially Jesus from every scholarly article Ive read, was a rebel against the Roman way of government.

 

[Øjeblikket]

well there is the whole Kabbala nonsense with the Jews,

what, exactly, does Kabbala nonsense with the Jews mean? If you are in fact claiming the tradition of to receive is Jewish nonsense then we should observe how unenlightened such a statement appears.

To my mind, the origins of the 666 number are tantamount to aliteration (in a sense).

Um, I'm not sure how the origins of a symbolically emphasised linguistic phenomenon which is clandestine (secret) in your opinion is tantamount (Equivalent) to alliteration. I'm not convinced you know what alliteration is. It is a poetic tool. Consider the following:

"I saw five fish fly past," "five fish fly" is an example of alliteration.

Your observation, arc150, literally means this: the origins of something secret is/are the same as writing a series of words that start with the same letter or sound.

what is it you're actually trying to say?

if you meant to say that 666, when enunciated, is an example of alliteration, then yes, you would be correct to some extent. I would wonder, then, why that's worth mentioning. Proper alliteration, btw, uses different words in achieving the effect of alliteration.

 

[Norsemaiden]

An interesting observation ARC150, but probably just cooincidence. The number of the beast is "six hundred and sixty-six rather than three 6s in a row. Another cooincidence with 666: how to get 666 from www. "The Hebrew and Greek alphabet does not have seperate characters or alphabets for numbers and letters. Letters are also used as numbers. So each letter is a numerical value.

"The Hebrew equivalent of our "w" is the letter "vav" or "waw". The numerical value is 6". http://www.av1611.org/666/www_666.html

Also, the Bible says no one will be able to buy or sell without the number of the beast, which would be www then?!

In John 8:42 Jesus refers to the Jews who don't believe him as belonging to their father the Devil. He says they are not God's children but the Devil's children, and that the Devil is a liar and the father of lies.

Another consideration is that there was no persecution of people for having other religions than the Roman religion in ancient Rome. "Roman authorities were tolerant of other religions if they didn't threaten public order or Roman control". http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/roman_religion_gallery.shtml

As long as the Christians or Jews didn't do this they were not troubled. There was even an altar to "the Unknown God". http://www.biblestudy.org/biblepic/unkgod.html

If Christians thought of Rome as being Satan, it would be comparable to how, although the US is tolerant of Islam within America, some Muslims call the US "the great Satan". (Mind you, the Muslims have more reason to call the US this than the Christians would have had if they called Rome Satan, because the US is persecuting Muslim nations on behalf of Israel.)

 

[Øjeblikket]

what a bunch of nonsense. Satan, as the metaphorical representation of an adversary of salvation, is not limited to one manifestation. One example carries no more weight than any other.

this still doesn't explain how the number of the breast is tantamount (sic) to alliteration.

 

[Cynical]

Uh, guys, you do realize that the real number of the beast is 616, and that it was screwed up in one of the many translations, right?

Also, it's common knowledge that it refers to Caeser.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Uh, guys, you do realize that the real number of the beast is 616, and that it was screwed up in one of the many translations, right?

Also, it's common knowledge that it refers to Caeser.

Actually there is good reasons to believe it is 666 and that 616 is simply an early mistranslation.
And yes 666 which is the number of the Name of the Beast is referring to Nero.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I had heard something like that, but anyway it's just a lot of nonsense as Ojeblikket says. Would you remind us of how it refers to either Caesar or Nero?

 

[Thoth-Amon]

I had heard something like that, but anyway it's just a lot of nonsense as Ojeblikket says. Would you remind us of how it refers to either Caesar or Nero?

The author of Revelation cleary indicates the Beast is a man (though the beast actually symbolizes several things in Revelation). "Here is wisdom, Le him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threeschore and six".

Quoting Tim Callahan in Bible Prophecy: "The Beast represents both Rome and the Antichrist. The second beast is referred to as the False Prophet. The healing of the mortal wound, along with the worship of the Beast and the number 666, all point to the Nero redivivus legend. Neros as the resurreced and worshipped emperor brings to mind emperor worship, which particularly offended early Christians, and a blasphemous parody of Jesus. The number 666 can be understood a number of ways. The letters of the Greek and Hebrew alphabets had numerical equivalents. If the name Neron Caesar is written in Hebrew letters, their sum is 666. If the name is written as Nero, rather than Neron, the sum is 616, which appears in place of 666 in some ancient manuscripts" (200).

 

[speed]

what, exactly, does Kabbala nonsense with the Jews mean? If you are in fact claiming the tradition of to receive is Jewish nonsense then we should observe how unenlightened such a statement appears.




Um, I'm not sure how the origins of a symbolically emphasised linguistic phenomenon which is clandestine (secret) in your opinion is tantamount (Equivalent) to alliteration. I'm not convinced you know what alliteration is. It is a poetic tool. Consider the following:



Your observation, arc150, literally means this: the origins of something secret is/are the same as writing a series of words that start with the same letter or sound.

what is it you're actually trying to say?

if you meant to say that 666, when enunciated, is an example of alliteration, then yes, you would be correct to some extent. I would wonder, then, why that's worth mentioning. Proper alliteration, btw, uses different words in achieving the effect of alliteration.

I find it amusing you are questioning the meaning of words, when your own writing is a minefield of words and sentences that mean nothing in the context in which they are written. Really, read what you have written and try not to laugh. I actually love that you post here, because I've never come across such pretentious absurdity in writing before in my life.

I was not being derogatory towards the jews; it was merely a stream of conscious remembrance that Kabbalah, the mystical study of numbers by some of the JEwish faith, may have some impact that I have no knowledge of.

 

[Øjeblikket]

I find it amusing you are questioning the meaning of words, when your own writing is a minefield of words and sentences that mean nothing in the context in which they are written. Really, read what you have written and try not to laugh. I actually love that you post here, because I've never come across such pretentious absurdity in writing before in my life.

I was not being derogatory towards the jews; it was merely a stream of conscious remembrance that Kabbalah, the mystical study of numbers by some of the JEwish faith, may have some impact that I have no knowledge of.

so it (the Kabbalah) therefore is nonsense and I am pretentious? wow. how about telling me what 666 has to do with alliteration before calling me absurd. how about discontinuing any urge of referring to another culture's spiritual practices as nonsense when what you mean to say is you don't understand the practices, or that they have little meaning in your life.

And no, I wasn't questioning the meaning of words, I was (1)stating the actual meaning of the word alliteration. Otherwise, if you really intend to argue that anything which you cannot assimilate into your understanding is nonsense then, yes, (2)you are thinking in rather unenlightened terms. There is no question on my part in either of those instances with regard to the meaning of words.

also, speed, so now you think my writing is absurd? Odd, wasn't it less than a month ago when you referred to my language as enjoyable for being like nothing else you've read before? Have you forgotten that moment?

Anyway, your attack on my writing is lame, especially in this thread which deals with -- what, exactly? I'd like to see you explain for me the correlation between the (allegedly) clandestine origins of 666 and alliteration. go ahead, I'm waiting.

furthermore, if you honestly cannot understand what I've written in this thread then I must apologize for not possessing the option of drawing you pictures to access your level of comprehension.

 

[speed]

so it (the Kabbalah) therefore is nonsense and I am pretentious? wow. how about telling me what 666 has to do with alliteration before calling me absurd. how about discontinuing any urge of referring to another culture's spiritual practices as nonsense when what you mean to say is you don't understand the practices, or that they have little meaning in your life.

And no, I wasn't questioning the meaning of words, I was (1)stating the actual meaning of the word alliteration. Otherwise, if you really intend to argue that anything which you cannot assimilate into your understanding is nonsense then, yes, (2)you are thinking in rather unenlightened terms. There is no question on my part in either of those instances with regard to the meaning of words.

also, speed, so now you think my writing is absurd? Odd, wasn't it less than a month ago when you referred to my language as enjoyable for being like nothing else you've read before? Have you forgotten that moment?

Anyway, your attack on my writing is lame, especially in this thread which deals with -- what, exactly? I'd like to see you explain for me the correlation between the (allegedly) clandestine origins of 666 and alliteration. go ahead, I'm waiting.

furthermore, if you honestly cannot understand what I've written in this thread then I must apologize for not possessing the option of drawing you pictures to access your level of comprehension.

Hehe. Let's be civil. You started our little fight here, with a rather over-the-top reaction to a fun little thread, and a few comments. You exposed intellectual laziness on both my and Arc150's part. I take it you come from the philosophy of language branch, with your ever so constant attempts to define words, and be such a stickler for clear and objective meanings--as in the case for your crusade against Arc150 and the meaning of alliteration (ah, the irony).

Anyway, I still enjoy what you write. It is highly interesting. In fact, this post of yours is the most lucid of any I've come across. Anyway, enlighten me on why Kabbalah is not nonsense, as I so carelessly put it.

And I've got a thread on Thinking in Pictures. You should search for it.

 

[Øjeblikket]

"I take it you come from the philosophy of language branch..."

no, I've interacted with some writers of poetry, is all.

 

[speed]

"I take it you come from the philosophy of language branch..."

no, I've interacted with some writers of poetry, is all.

Thats commendable. Seriously though, do you know anything about this kabbalah nonsense? More than the topical information presented on that ever so objective and totally thorough institution that is the History Channel? Haha, I actually watched almost a whole program of pop history about the Kabbalah. Old serious-looking bearded men, went on about how the bible could be deciphered by numbers etc. I was not very impressed.

 

[Norsemaiden]

"Christian enthusiasts, ignorant of cabalistic numerology, invariably interpret the number 666 to signify the devil. This is a mistaken assumption in many respects and shows a disregard of St John's injunction that the 'number of the beast' was counted only 'for him that hath understanding'. The cabalist with understanding knows that 666 refers as much to the 'Beast' as it does to Jesus Christ. The reason for this is that the words John used were, Kai o ariqmoV autou CxV` - 'And the number of his name is 666'. These critical words have a value of 2368: this number is unambiguous to the cabalist as the value of IhsouV CristoV - Jesus Christ. Was St John predicting that the great Beast might usurp the name of Jesus Christ?

It is also true that 666, as an emblem of the creative solar power in the cosmos, only becomes destructive when it is not balanced by its feminine counterpart - in this case it leads to authoritarianism and tyranny."

http://www.masoncode.com/TheGreatSeal.htm