The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The number 2368-Jesus Christ

The Greek Gematria of Iesous Christos (Jesus Christ) is 2368. In Revelation 13, 18, on the last part of the verse, the Greek in the Textus Receptus is “kai ho arithmos autou Chi-Xi-Stigma (666),” which also equals 2368 (the English of this verse is “and his number (is) 666.)”

This could leave one to think that Jesus Christ is actually the Beast/Antichrist or a counterfeit.

Basically if Jesus is the real Christ/Messiah, then, at the risk of sounding naiive, why would there be a verse in Revelation linking his name to an evil personage?

Assuming for purposes of argument that RevJohn’s gematria means anything other than a simple code to keep the text from being seized as inflammatory anti-Roman propaganda by the Imperial authorities; and assuming for purposes of argument that 666 also somehow equals 2368 by gematria (which you didn’t actually show but I’m assuming you have a reason for the equation, by one or another gematric protocol); and assuming for purposes of argument that the gematria of Christ’s name is actually important for any reason…{inhale}

1.) If the anti-Christ is setting himself up in place of Christ, as a counterfeit of Christ, why wouldn’t he have a number that happens to gematric out to the same as Christ’s number? Sounds like par for his course. The evil personage would be linking his name to Christ, not vice versa. (In some theories, the Antichrist actually claims to be Jesus Christ returned!–thus deceiving, if it were possible, even the elect. The Christ Clone Trilogy is a clever fictional example of this theory.) If the number refers by gematria to Nero Caesar instead/also, the point would be criticism that he’s taking for himself the position that ought to be held by Christ – certainly a strong concern for Christians at that time and afterward in regard to the various emperors. (The flip side being that some Emperors, including Nero, worried that Christians were reserving for a criminal slain as a rebel against Rome, titles and authorities proper only to the Roman Emperor. Thus leading to Imperial persecutions.)

2.) Anyone who pays more attention to gematria than to thematic contexts and narrative contexts and pretty much all the other contexts of Revjohn, kind of deserves to be misled into thinking that Jesus Christ is actually the Beast/Antichrist or a counterfeit. :wink: The context strongly indicates otherwise, showing how the gematria ought and ought not to be interpreted.

Well, i heard of this method from a few anti-Christian websites. The Greek Gematria value of the phrase in Greek “And his number (is) 666” equals out to 2368. The Gematria value of Iesous Christos (Jesus Christ) also equals 2368.

I wasn’t trying to say that 2368 some how points to 666. Rather, the part of the verse pointing to 666 equals 2368, which is the same number as that of Jesus Christ.

Iesous equals 888
Christos equals 1480

Just for reference, Yeshua in Hebrew/Aramaic equals 386.

As for Emperor Nero, it is funny you brought that up. In Rome, there was a phrase was written on a wall, according to Suetonius. Nero, Orestes, Alcmeon their mothers slew. A calculation new. Nero his mother slew. In Greek, Neron equals 1005 (and 1+0+0+5 equals 6) equals “he killed his own mother” in Greek. It is all too convenient that The very name Neron in Greek equals he killed his own mother in Greek. I think the Greek version of Gematria (from the Greek Geometria) is called Isopsephy?

The NRON QSR (Neron Kaisar) equals 666. In Greek Nero can also equal 955 (the Latin spelling of Nero in Greek transliteration). Add 9+5+5 and you get 19. Similarly, if you add 2+3+6+8 and you also get 19 (one could possibly be lead to say “Could Nero have created Christianity?” because of the parallels or contrast between Jesus and Nero-Jesus’ resurrection and Nero’s alleged revivification after his death come to mind). It should be noted that Nero’s original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, though he was related by blood to the Claudii Nerones and the Julii Caesares. Strangely enough both Emperors Tiberius and Claudius were each originally named Tiberius Claudius Nero (Nero was not originally a praenomen).

I may have gone off on tangent a little, but I thought that it would be interested to note that the supposed crucifixion of Jesus was done under a Nero (Emperor Tiberius) and the alleged first major first persecution of the Christians was also established by a Nero (Emperor Nero, of course).

This is not the worst mumbo-jumbo I’ve ever heard . . . but it’s not far off. :unamused: :laughing:

I suspect this is not dissimilar to seeing faces in the clouds. We have an innate drive to make sense out of seeming non-sense. Sometimes we manage. Sometimes we don’t. Who’d have thought that mass and energy would have anything whatsoever to do with the speed of light squared?

Because actually answering the problem as opposed to brushing it aside might require some critical thinking. Just kidding. LMAO! LOL LOL LOL LOL!

Anyway, I never said I believed such a theory, at least not completely. Much of the inspiration for this line of logic is in the vein of the Piso theory and David Icke.

And no, I am not saying that Emperor Nero invented Christianity either.

Still, it makes me wonder why certain things are so.

Oh I see. Sometimes I wonder if the god of Christian Universalism is any better than the god of traditional Christianity.m sorry that I’m not a happy go lucky universalist. I’m not a practicing Christian either. I’m more of an agnostic.

When I was having major problems in my life and attempted suicide a few years ago, where was god? If there was anything that helped me, it was hospitalization, therapy and medication. Not god. Even still, even with the antidepressant, antipsychotic, and anti anxiety medications I’m taking, I sometimes feel vigilant.

Hi Alexamenos,

Always risky to judge a God by the quality of his/her disciples. :slight_smile: (But I promise you, Cindy is a good sort and meant no offense.)

As for being agnostic, until we have a direct and unambiguous experience of God, what other rational position is possible? Even then, it’s impossible for a finite being to know an infinite being with complete certainly. Agnosticism therefore is necessary, and always will be. We must live by faith from first to last.

But that’s not the end of the story. We agnostics now must decide how to live. Will we live as if there is no God (we don’t know this for certain), or as if God is bad (also uncertain), or as if God is good (uncertain)? Since I can see no benefit whatsoever in choosing to live as if God is bad or imaginary, I choose to live as if God is good.

Hello Alexamenos
Please forgive any derogatory comments or disparaging remarks. We are all still searching and reaching. It is wrong if I or any others give the impression that we are ‘further down the road’ than anyone else - such comments usually go to establish the reverse.
Personally I believe that some make progress (towards God and Truth) using one approach and others using an entirely different approach. I happen to believe in a God who is clever enough and loving enough to give us clues in the straight text, the sub-text, the coded text and countless other ‘life experiences’. I think the important thing is that we try to be guided by the Holy Spirit (and to decode that I mean the Spirit of Love within each of us). I say its important but I fail every day.
May God bless you on your quest.
If you are interested in prophetic calculations within the Biblical Text, one source I find fascinating is the following:
oxfordbiblechurch.co.uk/pages/books.php

The books are online. I think it was “Daniels 70th week” which shewed me how the date of Jesus’ crucifixion was prophesied hundreds of years beforehand.

[P.S. I’m not saying its any better than your sources so thanks for that input!]

If that phrase hadn’t added up, some other phrase connected to the murder could probably have been invented to add it up. It was sort of a game.

True, his name written in Hebrew equals that by Hebrew gematria (which is why I mentioned Nero’s possible connection to the number–this is fairly well-known), but not by Greek gematria. (Latin gematria would be 616, which was attested by two miniscule copies of RevJohn no longer in existence according to Tischendorf.)

Shuffling gematria protocols around to come up with a result at absolute odds with the total thematic and narrative contexts otherwise, amounts to instant failure. There is a lack of any motive other than total speculation, too, as to why the author of RevJohn might be trying to secretly hint in an ultra-obscure way that Jesus’ “alleged” resurrection was copied from Nero’s “alleged” return redivivus (which the author would be warning people to watch out for as something that hasn’t happened yet and never in fact did, so it’s hardly prophecy after the fact. Which is one reason among many others why scholars have been trending toward dating RevJohn’s composition sometime in the late 60s, not the 90s.)

Yeah, the contrasts are rather more obvious than the parallels there. :unamused: The persecution of the Christians under Nero is hardly “alleged” either, unless by “alleged” you think Tacitus (who has nothing good to say about Christians) was reporting wild hearsay which would have been easily disproven by anyone asking about Christians being set afire and crucified by Nero.

Considering how often names and titles and name-titles got recycled among the Imperial family (and family branches), I would actually have been more surprised if Nero hadn’t gotten his name from predecessors somehow. It’s hardly a suspicious coincidence.

The earliest fragment of the Apocalypse has the number of the Beast as 616 and not 666, :confused:

Alexamenos,

I’m sorry for hurting your feelings – that honestly wasn’t my goal. As far as all the numerological codes and so on, though, I think they’re a load of bosh – and you yourself admitted you don’t actually believe it – or that’s what I understand you to be saying. If you sign in and say, “I’ve had all these emotional problems and struggles and just don’t know what I believe, or I just can’t wangle up a belief in God, or I don’t understand a God who doesn’t punish the wicked, etc.,” everyone here without exception will be sympathetic with you. But yes, I should have been more sympathetic anyway, and I hope you’ll forgive me.

So let me put it straight. I don’t believe in numerology (or what ever the correct name is) and I think it’s a waste of your time and anxiety to worry about it. As Jason suggested, just read the narrative. It’ll make a whole lot more sense. And when it doesn’t make sense to you, feel free to ask absolutely any question you like. We may not have the answers, but we’ll do our best to help you find them.

Blessings, Cindy

Which one is that? – Metzger and the UBS committee don’t think 616 exists in a text anymore (and only in two miniscules, necessarily rather late, before they were destroyed). Although now that I look at it, their notes seem to involve a misprint, as they mention text C, citations from Irenaeus, Tyconius (in one translation) and Caesarius, as well as the Vulgate generally (for obvious reasons, 616 being the Latin gematria), but their notes don’t mention papyrus 115. This text is still regarded in the apparatus as slightly younger than papyrus 47.

Not that it makes any difference. :slight_smile:

That’s okay, Cindy. It’s just that I try to look deep into things at times. For reference, some people say that I’m paranoid.

To Sobornost-

Indeed. The Aramaic and Hebrew form of Nero Caesar (NRO QSR) equals 616. With the second nun, it equals 666 in the Greek form.

Even though I don’t believe in most of the numerological systems, it’s nevertheless strange how some things can draw parallels to each other. Perhaps the Rev 13: 18 numerological value of 2368 points to the antichrist as an imposter of Jesus Christ?

Also, while Nero’s Latin name equals 955 and 19 and Jesus Christ’s Greek name equals 2368 and 19, perhaps there is a contrast between the two.

Also, does anyone know about the Piso theory? I think it’s not accurate. Nevertheless, it helped influence my shift from Christianity to Agnosticism.

Not that I’m necessarily asking anyone to disprove such theories, such as a Roman leader (ie. Nero, Titus, Piso) inventing Christianity and using code in the bible to cover it up. I think it’s impossible to prove or disprove it, just as it is impossible to prove or disprove a random combination of letters and numbers and making sense of it.

I have to say, the idea of a Roman Emperor inventing Christianity is entirely new to me. Also it sounds grossly implausible on the face of it, and why that Emperor would then use a code in his own invented Christian scriptures to “cover it up” makes absolutely no sense to me. Why anyone would join a cult devoted to a Jew (in an age rampant with anti-Semitism) handed over by the highest Jewish authorities (thus excluding reverent Jews, too, by first default) to be crucified by Imperial authority (thus volunteering to be crucified themselves or otherwise imprisoned and tortured based on the whims of local or higher government) without major evidence in favor of it (by their standards if not ours) makes even less than absolutely no sense to me.

That this happened anyway is an indisputable fact, that admittedly calls for a probably-proportionately-unusual explanation. If the proposed explanation makes no sense, however, I’m not going to accept it.

I prefer basing my beliefs on boring things like logical coherency and historical plausibility. :slight_smile: If the boring things lead to nifty things like an Incarnate God Most High walking on water, that’s a bonus. :wink: Pushups first, fun afterward.

By the same token, I don’t expect or want other people to accept things like God Incarnate walking on water unless they themselves find it logically coherent and more historically plausible than alternatives. Truth isn’t served by setting up and indulging in bad mental habits: if the best that particular persons can see to be is some kind of non-Christian, let it be so. As long as they’re walking according to what light they can see, looking for more light thereby, in order to be fair together with other people, they’re doing their best under whatever circumstances they have: they’re striving with, not against, the Holy Spirit (even if they can’t believe in a Holy Spirit) and are clearly among the sheep not the (baby) goats. :slight_smile:

Well,there is another idea that Emperor Titus and the Flavians invented Christianity (Caesar’s Messiah by Joseph Atwill). There are a lot of revisionist theories out there. According to one theory, Jesus Christ was based on the person of Julius Caesar (Jesus Was Caesar, by Francesco Carotta, et al). In another one, Caesar’ and Cleopatra’s son Caesarion was the historical Jesus. It doesn’t stop there. In another theory, Jesus descended from the Herodian dynasty, while in another, the historical Pharaoh Tutankhamen was Jesus. Then the Roman Piso/Royal supremacy theory. Then you have John Allegro’s theory. These theories have been dismissed by Christian apologists before.

One thing that bothers me is that according to some of these theories, the Romans originally invented Christianity to subjugate the Jews in Judea and later subdue gentile slaves, and that the New Testament doesn’t have an overt anti-slavery stance; many also view the New Testament as anti-Semitic. Maybe slavery wasn’t condemned outright by the NT because Christian leaders had hoped that slavery would be abolished once Roman authorities would eventually support Christianity? Also, maybe the NT has also been given a bad reputation of being anti-Semitic, when much of the NT was likely written by Jews?

And by historians generally. :wink: It isn’t only Christian apologists who dismiss them.

I run across ultra-fringe theories like this on occasion, but at best I regard them as entertaining fiction. Usually not so entertaining.

Except for Paul’s letter to Philemon where he says that he could outright order Philemon to free Onesimus but he expects the man to do the right thing on his own volition. But true, there’s no overt anti-slavery agenda in the NT. It can exist in a world with slaves, but it can also exist in a world without slaves and its principles tend toward the abrogation of slavery.

It would be completely bizarre for Roman Emperors to invent a religion which says that slaves and emperors are equal under God (and that emperors are not gods and shouldn’t be worshiped) in order to pacify mostly Gentile slaves, by having them worship a Jewish carpenter tortured to death by a Roman governor with the extreme penalty given to rebels against the Empire. Breads, circuses and ritual prostitution would seem a more reasonable choice (and strategies with actual historical evidence) than an option which leads the slaves to be signing up for the risk of being persecuted and crucified along with their god.

It is true that in the texts Jesus and the apostles generally promote tolerance and love toward even the pagan occupiers, which caused them severe trouble with fellow Jews (so that concept hardly worked very well), but that includes evangelizing Romans, including Roman leaders, to follow YHWH and Jesus as Lord and Savior instead of Caesar! Do we have other examples of the Romans promoting religions against the Pax Romana (in one key way) as part of keeping the Pax Romana (in other ways)?! They tolerated Judaism as part of their treaty with Herod the Great, so long as the Jews didn’t cause trouble, but they didn’t invent Judaism, much less promote people to convert to it.

Titus and Vespasian hardly needed Christianity as an excuse to invade and subjugate Judea; the radically non-Christian (and alternate Messianic) zealot factions (with Bar Kochba a generation later) sufficed for that. So the religion wasn’t invented by Romans for that purpose either.

There is exactly no racial intolerance of any kind in the New Testament (unless one counts Paul reporting the joke of a Cretan philosopher he clearly admired on other evidence, about all Cretans being liars. But that wouldn’t be racial intolerance of Semitic people.)

There are criticisms of Jewish religious leaders, and of Judaism in various forms, but the texts which go in most for that also strongly promote Judaism, and none of the texts criticize Jewish religious leaders and Judaism as much as the Jewish scriptures themselves (and the rabbis afterward). An inter-Jewish dispute is not anti-Jewish. That would be like saying I’m anti-Christian for criticizing various religious leaders and forms of Christianity, which would be ludicrous. That wouldn’t (and doesn’t) stop people who really are anti-Christian from borrowing things I write to bolster their own hatred of Christianity, but they’re the ones being anti-Christian, not me. The same goes for anti-Jews (and anti-Semites, which aren’t categorically the same thing although naturally they tend to have overlaps) picking up things from the NT to use against Jews. That such people are often themselves Christian after the fact doesn’t make it any better, but doesn’t make them any more correct to do so either: they’re irresponsibly ignoring a ton of details to indulge their pet hatreds.

Why the Roman Emperors would create a religion for anti-Jewish purposes that heavily promotes and encourages religious Judaism and religious Jews and conversion to a form of historical religious Judaism (away from the paganisms of the Pax Romana), is a problem the promoters of such an idea will have to overcome to be taken seriously by anyone other than rabid anti-Christians and people who can’t pay attention to details but have an (otherwise harmless) aesthetic interest in wildly implausible theories for whatever reason.

We have to make guesses, unfortunately, about why slavery isn’t outright condemned in the NT, but that’s as reasonable a guess as anything.

The NT has definitely been given a bad reputation of being anti-Semitic, which is a completely insane and/or ignorant charge against it. But to a large degree that’s an ignorant accident of language, as people commonly confuse anti-Semitism (which is a racial prejudice often typically connected in modern days with some form of evolutionary theory) with anti-Judaism; people really mean the latter by saying the former.

The NT’s reputation of being anti-Jewish is a little more understandable, since the texts are demonstrably against non-Christian Judaisms; but all the texts are highly in favor of Judaism more broadly, with multiple kinds and layers of details. So any charge of anti-Judaism is still greatly ignorant of the facts, at best; and maybe willfully ignorant. It would practically be like calling the Koran anti-Arabic and anti-theistic.

I hugely disagree with the theology and some of the historical claims of the Mormon Christian texts, for example, but it would be ridiculous for me to call those texts anti-Jewish regardless of what I thought of them otherwise, despite their criticisms of some forms of Judaism. (I don’t know enough about them to affirm or deny that they’re anti-Semitic, although they do seem a bit anti-Amerindian, as they expect North American natives to become racially white on proper conversion.)