• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Questions about 666

Since I am not allowed up to this point to leave links If you need the numerical value of the letters go to wikipedia and search for hebrew alphabet then scroll down to Names, scripts, values, and transliteration of the letters. There you will find a chart to assist.

Besides if you leave off the yod and the vav you end up with shin, shin as the spelling and end up with 600 anyway. Does that mean you would write it in Hebrew Shin Shin and the number for your jesus in Hebrew would be 600?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Since I am not allowed up to this point to leave links If you need the numerical value of the letters go to wikipedia and search for hebrew alphabet then scroll down to Names, scripts, values, and transliteration of the letters. There you will find a chart to assist.

Besides if you leave off the yod and the vav you end up with shin, shin as the spelling and end up with 600 anyway. Does that mean you would write it in Hebrew Shin Shin and the number for your jesus in Hebrew would be 600?

Thanks for the wiki reference. I don't have a number for "my Jesus" - I'm not into that kinda stuff, and I can't see how it would be useful, especially in this case (interpretation of 666).
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Tell me what you come up with? Maybe you don't care but at least for the debate sake give it a shot.

Nothing. So far you have given me nothing. You say it's in several sources. Cite one scholar who assigns a numerical value to the "beast Jesus." What I want is the name of the scholar and the name of the publication, and the date would also be useful. Perhaps what we consider a "scholar" is different. I would expect a someone with a Ph.d. in New Testament or OT/Hebrew bible from a recognized university to address something like this in an article or book if it were significant, and I don't know of any who do, and I'm familiar with a lot of them.
 
Do you disagree that j-e-s-u-s adds up to 616 using the same methods scholars have used with the Hebrew language for many years now?

You have misquoted consistently what I have been saying and you make it quite obvious. As quoted above I never stated any scholar that I am aware of placed the name jesus in the calculation of 616. I stated I used the methods that they used. This was to include the method that was used as you had pointed out with the name Nero Caesar. Including their proper use of non-written vowels that some use dashes and dots as aids in pronunciation, and consonant/vowels as well as consonants. There is no letter form for vowels but there is for the letters yod and vav. The scholars use these as your very own documentation has shown. If it is written like yeshua yod-shin-vav-ayin you add it up. Go back and check out your reference to Nero. I applied the same method as the scholars have, and do. yod-shin-vav-shin. The math has already been done. There is a yod, There is a vav, what letter of the Hebrew alphabet represents the "e"? What number does it represent in Hebrew? The references you pointed out don't count it as a written letter or use it as a number, but they do use the yods and the vavs.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
As quoted above I never stated any scholar that I am aware of placed the name jesus in the calculation of 616. I stated I used the methods that they used. This was to include the method that was used as you had pointed out with the name Nero Caesar.

Yet that is what I was repeatedly asking for. Just saying that you made it up would have been sufficient.
 
I would like to thank you for your time and the information you have made available to the viewers. It is a great opportunity for others to take the references and statements you have made and see for themselves where it leads. There is definately enough information from your responses, enough to give them a very good start. Thank you for making it simple enough for even us non scholars, and as for me just a nobody, to be able to gain further understanding with the tools you have offered. That is not saying one would have to take your position in order to use the tools, but it is like a non believer bringing a bible to the attention of someone else. Even with dishonorable motives at least the opportunity exists for both to behold the truth. It leaves no excuses. Thanks again

The Riley Family
www.newhopeforall.info (in the preparation stages)
www.backsideoftheedge.com (I am employed as an unskilled laborer. Here is a website with some insight)

PS angellous_evangellous I was curious about The Paterfamilias
Pater familias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Paterfamilias)
Jump to: navigation, search
The pater familias (plural: patres familias) was the highest ranking family status (status familiae) in an Ancient Roman household, always a male position. The term is Latin, literally, for "father of the family". The form is irregular and archaic in Latin, preserving the old genitive ending in -as (see Latin declension).
The Roman pater was not a father in the modern, mostly western, sense of the concept, but a chief of the family domus (house). Pater is thus a distinct concept for that of the biological father, which was called the Genitor. The power held by the pater familias was called patria potestas (paternal power)." Potestas is distinct from auctoritas, also held by the pater. The power of the pater was over his familia iure proprio (not necessarely kin-based, but a political, economical and religious unit) and his familia domestica (based on kinship and co-residence).

Patria potestas

Under the laws of the Twelve Tables, the pater familias had vitae necisque potestas - the "power of life and death" - over his children, his wife (in some cases), and his slaves, all of whom were said to be sub manu, "under his hand". For a slave to become a freedman (someone with status libertatis), he would have to be delivered "out of the hand" of the pater familias, hence the terms manumissio and emancipatio. At law, at any rate, his word was absolute and final. If a child was unwanted, under the Roman Republic the pater familias had the power to order the child put to death by exposure.
He had the power to sell his children into slavery; Roman law provided, however, that if a child has been sold as a slave three times, he is no longer subject to the patria potestas. The pater familias had the power to approve or reject marriages of his sons and daughters; however, an edict of the Emperor Caesar Augustus provided that the pater familias could not withold that permission lightly.
One should notice that the pater's children, the filii familias, could be other than biological offspring, such as brothers, nephews or adoptive sons and daughters. In Ancient Rome, the family household was, therefore, conceived as a economical and juridical unit subordinated to a single person, with a great deal of authority (the potestas and auctoritas) over all its members - in fact, the Latin word familia (which is the etymological origin for the English word "family"), originally meant the group of the famuli (servus or serfs and slaves) living under the same roof. And the familia was considered the basic social unit, more primordial, for instances, than the gens (clan, caste, or group of families).
Besides being a chief, the pater familias was the only person endowed with legal capacity, or sui iuris. Women (in most but not all cases), the filii, slaves and foreigners had a capitis deminutio (literally, a "diminished head", meaning diminished capacity), that is, they could not celebrate valid contracts, nor did they posses, by rule, personal property. All assets and contracts belonged, in principle, to the pater. A capitis deminutio meant a tendencial lack of legal personality, even if there were some restrictions: there were laws protecting the slaves, and the incapable (everyone with a capitis deminutio) could, in some circunstances, posses a quasi- personal property, the peculium.
As such, the patres familias were the only full legal persons, but, because of their extended rights (their longa manus, literally "long hand"), they also had a series of extra duties: duties towards the women, the filii and the slaves (though some of these duties were not recognized by the original ius civile, but only by the ius gentium, specially directed to foreigners, or by the ius honorarium, the law of the Magistratus, specially the Praetor, which emerges in a latter period of Roman law).
Only a Roman citizen, someone with status civitatis, could enjoy the status of pater familias. There could only be one holder of the office within a household. Even male adult filii remained under the authority of their pater while he still lived, and could not acquire the rights of a pater familias while he was yet alive; at least in legal theory, all their property was acquired on behalf of their father, and he, not they, had ultimate authority to dispose of it. Those who lived in their own households at the time of the pater's death succeeded to the status of pater familias over their respective households (pater familias sui iuris), even if they were just in their teens. Women were always under the control (sub manu) of a pater familias, either their original pater, or the pater of their husband's family once married.
Over time, the absolute authority of the pater familias tended to be weakened, and rights that theoretically existed were no longer enforced or insisted upon.
 
Top