število 666

[mali]

Okej... kaj za vraga si hotel povedati s prvima dvema vrsticama?

Prve 4 besede, ena knjiga, 3 poglavja, vsi navedki prvo poglavje.

Razen predsodka in sodbe o navezanosti ter sodbi, ne?

Hm, ne vem če si prav prebral, zapisal sem "nEvezanosti" ne pa "nAvezanosti".
Ne moreš nepristransko opazovati, če že imaš neko mnenje.
Ko enkrat nekaj veš o nečem, lahko znanje le nadgrajuješ, nedolžnost je izgubljena.
Če pa treniraš nevezanost zaradi doseganja nevezanosti same, pa gre,
sicer težje, čim dlje je trajal premor,
a gre vseeno. Počasi pa po kamnih.

Če te prav razumem, sprašuješ, če je mogoče, da je izostanek predsodka v bistvu nov predsodek. A misliš, da bi utegnil biti povratni predsodek?

Sam nisem tega mnenja.
Če predsodke zavestno izločiš / izločaš iz pozornosti in se v tem uriš, počasi napreduješ.
Vsaj v SFRJ so nas učili, da vaja dela mojstra, mojster pa vajo.

LP

[shrink]

Ena zanimivost:

Ruleti pravijo tudi hudičeva igra. Zakaj?

Pri ruleti je namreč možno staviti na 37 števil (od 0 do 36). Če ta števila med seboj seštejemo (vsota prvih 37 členov aritmetičnega zaporedja s prvim členom 0 in diferenco 1), dobimo:

\(0+1+...+36&=&\frac{37}{2}(2*0+(37-1)*1)&=&666\)

Verjetno, ni za pričakovati, da je to Pascalovo maslo... Ali pač?

[NIKKI]

Vidim, da manjka izobrazbe!
Nova Zaveza je napisana v Grščini, v prvih stoletjih našega štetja! "Arabske" številke, v resnici so prišle iz Indije, so k nam prišle v srednjem veku. Pisec Videnja je uporabljal rimske številke. Zato je pravilno:
DCLXVI

[btasko]

caw....ja jst sm poa slisau...pa ne vem glih kje, da število 7 izraža popolnost (kao Bog)....število 666 pa izraža hudiča in s tem nepopolnost...je to ze kdo slisau?

LP

[Dedal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast
Vse o 666

[shrink]

Vidim, da manjka izobrazbe!
Nova Zaveza je napisana v Grščini, v prvih stoletjih našega štetja! "Arabske" številke, v resnici so prišle iz Indije, so k nam prišle v srednjem veku. Pisec Videnja je uporabljal rimske številke. Zato je pravilno:
DCLXVI

Glede pripombe o pomanjkanju izobrazbe bi bil na tvojem mestu previden:

Prispevek v wikipediji namreč pove, da je "število 666" v grškem rokopisu (v bistvu so v grščini napisane kopije, saj nekateri navajajo, da so bili originali napisani v hebrejščini) nove zaveze zapisano kot

χξϛ´ (666 v grškem numerični obliki)

ali

ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ (šeststo šestinšestdeset).

O zapisu števila z rimskimi simboli ni ničesar omenjenega. Seveda obstaja možnost, da je v kakšni verziji biblije bil uporabljen rimski zapis, verjetno pa nihče zagotovo ne ve, katera verzija biblije je "najbolj originalna" in zato tudi ni možno ugotoviti, v kakšni obliki je bilo "število 666" prvotno zapisano.

[NIKKI]

V Rimskem imperiju so uporabljali rimske številke! Ostalo je bilo neuradno. Kdor se je upiral cesarju, so ga pač pribili na križ (o čemer govori npr. Nova zaveza), seveda, če ni bil dotični državljan Rima. Tem so dovolili, da so se sami nabodli na meč.
Čudi me, da še danes obstaja Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia ali Hexakosioihexekontahexatropia.
Biblijo je itak sestavil uredniški odbor, na na koncilu v 4. stoletju n.š. (sedajle ne vem točno).
Glede izobrazbe, gre za slabo poznavanje zgodovine in tudi judovsko-krščanske mitologije. Zato se mi zdi ta šund poveličevanje 666 nepristno in za lase privlečeno.
DCLXVI
ali
WWW
sta verjetno bolj prav, če že?

[shrink]

V Rimskem imperiju so uporabljali rimske številke! Ostalo je bilo neuradno. Kdor se je upiral cesarju, so ga pač pribili na križ (o čemer govori npr. Nova zaveza), seveda, če ni bil dotični državljan Rima. Tem so dovolili, da so se sami nabodli na meč.

To ničesar ne dokazuje. Predvidevajo namreč, da so bile knjige NT verjetno takoj po nastanku večkrat prepisane. Zato ni mogoče vedeti, v kakšnem jeziku so bile napisane in kakšni simboli so bili uporabljeni za števila.

Čudi me, da še danes obstaja Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia ali Hexakosioihexekontahexatropia.

Heh, patološki strah pred 666, ali kaj? Obstaja še marsikaj drugega v sv. pismu, ki vzbuja strah. Recimo "armageddon", ki ga nekatere verske ločine že stoletja pričakujejo. Pa ne sedaj reči, da te tudi to čudi.

Biblijo je itak sestavil uredniški odbor, na na koncilu v 4. stoletju n.š. (sedajle ne vem točno).

Rokopis, ki ga navajaš, je zgolj eden od prepisov NT. Verjetno imaš v mislih Codex Vaticanus, napisan v 4. st. v Rimu.

Glede izobrazbe, gre za slabo poznavanje zgodovine in tudi judovsko-krščanske mitologije. Zato se mi zdi ta šund poveličevanje 666 nepristno in za lase privlečeno.

Rekel bi, da gre tudi pri tebi za nepoznavanje zgodovine, in to predvsem v smislu naglega (in omejenega) sklepanja glede na zgodovinski kontekst. V zgodovini je namreč tako, da je zaradi pomanjkanja virov možnih več razlag oz. interpretacij. Interpretacije verskih besedil (npr. pomena "števila 666" v Bibliji) pa so še večji problem. Če bi bila sporočila verskih besedil kristalno jasna, potem bi npr. vsi pripadniki islamske vere tolmačili "džihad" na enak način. Tako pa ga fundamentalisti jemljejo "dobesedno", ostali pa ga interpretirajo drugače. Podobno je s simboliko "števila 666" v Bibliji. Nekateri ga interpretirajo na en način, ostali pa na drug. Ni pa možno trditi, da je neka interpretacija bolj pravilna od druge.

DCLXVI
ali
WWW
sta verjetno bolj prav, če že?

Uporaba besedne zveze "bolj pravilno" kaže na to, da še sam nisi prepričan o tem. Vsekakor se strinjam, da je bilo na ozemlju Rimskega imperija "bolj pravilno" uporabljati rimske simbole. Že zaradi zakonov (oz. sankcije, da so vsakogar, ki je nasprotoval cesarju, pribili na križ). Tudi za Slovence, ki so živeli pod fašistično Italijo je bilo "bolj pravilno", da niso uporabljali slovenske besede, tako v govornem kot pisnem sporočanju. Toda vseeno so jo.

[genion]

Tole sem našel na internetu:
The true meaning of 666
By Chuck Huckaby - posted Thursday, 21 April 2005 Sign Up for free e-mail updates!Sign Up for free e-mail updates!

I was driving past a church that had a sign stating "Free Bible Prophecy Seminar"… and I didn't want you to feel left out. So in this sermon I'm going to talk about "666"!

Pastors are often asked to tell who the person the number "666" in the Book of Revelation refers to. I want to tell you the very first person the author of the Book of Revelation has in mind when it uses the number 666. And the answer isn’t in any newspaper you'll read on the newsstands or on the Internet today. The answer isn’t found in the books on prophecy I've ever seen in the Christian bookstore.

The answer is found in the Bible however so that's where we'll start. And it's found when you realise that the Book of Revelation is filled with quotations of Holy Scripture from the Old Testament.
Advertisement


The number 666 is no different. Yes, the Book of Revelation was a code to those outside the church. But to people inside the church it was to be an open book … and it is if we will read our Bibles and look for answers there instead of in the newspapers.

So the number "666" is an allusion to the Old Testament that can be found in 2 Chronicles 9:13. Can someone look that up and tell me who it refers to? The answer is Solomon and 666 is the number of talents of gold he collected annually as tribute. A talent weighs 75 pounds (34.09 kilos)! At US$400 per ounce, that's over US$300 million dollars a year.

What does this tell us about Solomon? Why is he the person Revelation hearkens back to when it portrays a diabolical figure opposed to the kingdom of God? To understand that it's crucial to understand the responsibilities placed upon the Hebrew King as revealed in Holy Scripture.

Deuteronomy 17: 16 – 18 says of the Kings of Israel:

He must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, “You shall never return that way again”. And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

In plain English, the King of Israel was forbidden to stockpile weapons for exporting war. He was not to emulate the pagans in creating a harem, nor exploit the people through taxation, and he was to humbly preserve and obey the word of God. Solomon at the height of his reign failed at all of these things. He came to represent a figure addicted to money, women and power.

He ascended the throne, and while he built a fabulous temple, I cannot find where it is recorded that he wrote for himself any book of the word of God. His heart was lifted up and carried away. And the wisdom with which he wrote Holy Scripture was absent as he became intoxicated with earthly glory and power. And so Solomon comes to epitomise the diabolical leader who is so drunk with power that despite his pretence of faithfulness to God he has lost sight of the Word of God.

And so Solomon - though he is the Son of David - is not the Messiah for whom the people long. Solomon starts strong but at some point he becomes carried away with the pomp, splendour and power that surround him and he violates all the laws God put in place to protect the heart of the King and to protect the people from a leader gone mad with arrogance and self-deception.

So when Solomon comes to Jerusalem as King, he becomes the person whom the Book of Revelation uses as a pattern for diabolical evil - a politician with the words of God on his lips and the works of the flesh dominating his life.

That is not how Jesus came to Jerusalem as a King. Unlike Solomon, Jesus' coming as a king was not about how much tribute and tax he could extract from an unwilling populace. When Jesus came to Jerusalem it was about what He could offer: Himself upon a rough hewn altar called the Cross as a propitiation for the sins of the world. He came in humility on a donkey - not on the shoulders of slaves in a gold crusted throne or on a chariot. He came as the slave of God.

Jesus is the king - unlike Solomon - who has the word of God with him, who reads it and lives it all the days of his life, and whose heart is not lifted up with pride and arrogance. Jesus comes as the servant king who is not mad with power and trusting in his weapons, women, and wealth to keep him happy. And so instead on the night he is to be betrayed, Jesus teaches His disciples something He's tried to get through their thick skulls for three years.

The disciples are the kind of people who think that because they're with Jesus they're OK and every one else is going to hell. Even though they're spiritually thick-headed they think they're spiritually brilliant. They think Jesus is just preaching to everyone else when He talks about servanthood and repentance. All the while they're planning who's going to be running heaven and how all the people who looked down on them are going to have to eat their dust when the apostles are sitting down to eat at the kingdom of heaven.

Having been in a seminary for three years, I can tell you that some folks studying to be ministers think they've hit the big time when they get to be a preacher. They think they'll get to tell everybody else what to do - and they can't wait till they can lord it over people and tell everyone else what to do.

Someone said to me the other day, "boy you sure got me with that sermon the other day". I said, “well I wasn't aiming it at you. I was aiming it at me … you must have been collateral damage!”

But like the Bishops of old in the Roman Empire who thought their ordination destined them to rule as princes and destined the people to obey as slaves, too many preachers and Christian leaders see their opportunity to preach or teach as a time to tell everyone else what to do and not to worry about doing it themselves.

But it doesn't work that way in Jesus' kingdom. The servant is no better than his or her master and our Master Jesus lives with a servitude and humility that comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. Being a servant in Jesus’ kingdom means eating some dust. That's what Jesus did. That's what his servants are to do. Through our baptism we have put on Christ. Will we walk as Jesus walked? Will we wash the filthy? Or will we leave the dirty work to someone else?

When we leave the dirty work to someone else … that person or ideology will have their soul.

* When we leave broken hearted kids to be raised by MTV … the devil will have another soul.
* When we say to divorced and broken hearted people … you're sort of embarrassing to us because you're single again and we let the Good Times Bar soothe their pain … the devil will have another soul.
* When the person offering single mothers economic opportunity is the guy who runs the strip club instead of Christian entrepreneurs finding God's blessing to create honest work … the devil will have another soul.
* And when we're married and the person we live with doesn't sense our affirmation and instead they find it someplace else … the devil will have another soul.

But when Christians do the dirty work of giving people acceptance and hope, God will make sure He receives the glory and that people are drawn to Him. Then look at the people and ask, “How can you wash someone's feet this weak in Jesus' name?”

[Japi]

Hehe, ta "misli s svojo glavo" je prefinjen način prepričevanja v svoje prav.

Mali, po tem kar si napisal si še ojačal moje grdo gledanje proti Cerkvi in njenim naukom.

Saj si to hotel, a ne

Bolj uboga tvoja vera, če je odvisna od katere koli osebe. Mali to z misli s svojo glavo po moje ni mislil v smislu nekega prepričevanja, ampak da razmisliš objektivno. Če bi vedel, čemu je bilo SP sploh napisano, ne bi enačil kvazi verske dostojanstvenike z vero samo. Ti že logika ne dopusti, da so prav vsi v Cerkvi sposobni živet v tem nauku...

[mriz]

Bolj uboga tvoja vera, če je odvisna od katere koli osebe.

Em... katera vera pa ni odvisna od katere koli osebe?

Mali to z misli s svojo glavo po moje ni mislil v smislu nekega prepričevanja, ampak da razmisliš objektivno.

Seveda da razmislim objektivno, ampak nujno na tak način, da bom prišel do njegovih rezultatov. Ne mi rečt, da še nisi nikoli slišal ali uporabil te finte...

Če bi vedel, čemu je bilo SP sploh napisano, ne bi enačil kvazi verske dostojanstvenike z vero samo.

A jih enačim? Ne spomnim se točno kaj mi je skakalo po glavi ko sem pisal to kar si citiral, ampak mislim da 'grdo gledanje proti Cerkvi in njenim naukom' ne pomeni mešanje verskih (torej v tem primeru cerkvenih) dostojanstvenikov z vero samo.

Ti že logika ne dopusti, da so prav vsi v Cerkvi sposobni živet v tem nauku...

V katerem? Njenim ali direktno verskim? V obeh primerih se s tabo strinjam.

[Japi]

Bolj uboga tvoja vera, če je odvisna od katere koli osebe.

Em... katera vera pa ni odvisna od katere koli osebe?

Če bi ti bilo dano verovat, me tega ne bi spraševal. Ampak, da ne boš rekel, da je to spet neka besedna finta v smislu prepričevanja brez dokazov, ti bom poskusil povedat drugače.
Ker mislim (glede na tvoje dosedanje poste), da si precej tehnični tip (so verjetno bolj redki, ki tu sodelujejo in niso:)), ti bom poskusil čisto s tehnične plati razložit nauk, ki ga uči Krščanska vera. Glavna od vseh je zapoved, da ljubi svojega bližnjega kakor samega sebe. Če si sposoben it čez vse napake soljudi (ker je bolj težko kakšen od njih popoln), boš do vseh prijazen in jih boš imel rad. To kar seješ, ponavadi tudi žanješ in bližnji te bodo veseli in ti vračali prijaznost. Tako bo svet zate lepši in prijetnejši. To je le en od vrste čisto tehničnih "idej" ali nasvetov ali zapovedi, v kakšno smer se trudit, da bo že življenje tu na zemlji bolj podobno tistemu, čemur pravijo nebesa, pa nihče pravzaprav ne ve čisto točno, kaj to je:) Posmrtno življenje in vse ostalo bom raje pustil za kakšno drugo priložnost, rad pa bi ti pokazal, da nauk oz. bistvo vere ni stvar, katero bi človek že apriorij zavračal in ga tlačil skupaj s cerkvenimi voditelji, ker so po večini in skozi stoletja ta biser vere obrnili v svojo korist in z njo manipulirali in imeli neko oblast nad ljudmi. Zato ti pravim, da je uboga tvoja vera, če je odvisna od kateregakoli človeka. Vera je hmmm, način življenja, trud živeti po naukih, ki ti jih vera ponuja. Biblija je navodilo, zbirka nasvetov za dosego le-tega - biti dober.

Upam, da mojega posta ne boš vzel kot neko "pranje možganov" oz. prepričevanje v nekaj (ker je to danes kar pogost pojav pri stvareh, ki z vero nimajo nič), ampak kot idejo ali pomoč, kako postati boljši človek. Teorija je v bibliji, praksa pa v tvojih soljudeh:) Če poskusiš boš v najslabšem primeru zapravil čas za branje ene knjige:) Lep pozdrav!

[Mephisto]

Japi:
Ampak ali moraš za to, da si boljši človek, nujno verovati v boga? Ali ne moreš se sam pri sebi držati nekih zapovedi in recimo verovati v človeka (tako zvani satanizem, torej, človek nad bogom)?

Se strinjam, da vsak človek v nekaj veruje, pa naj si bo to v Valentina Rossija, v Slovensko nogometno reprezentanco, v Tamagočija ali karkoli drugega, kar mu daje veselje. Saj če ne veruje, potem je po vsej verjetnosti precej ravnodušen, ampak takega človeka pa še nisem srečal.

In mislim da je mriz hotel povedati da brez človeka vere ni. Torej vera je odvisna od človeka.

[qg]

Vzrok je en sam. V Svetem pismu v Apokalipsi piše: Kdor ima um, naj izračuna število zveri: je namreč število človeka. To število pa je šeststo šestinšestdeset. Kaj naj bi to pomenilo, ne ve nihče, zato pa prihaja do različnih tolmačenj.

V hebrejski pisavi se črke in številke uporabljajo za iste stvari (??). Ko so pogledali s tem, so dobili, da 666 pomeni Nerona. Janez, ki je pisal Apokalipso, je takrat Nerona že poznal. Verjetno je hotel napisati v simbolih, da ga ne bi zato vrgli levom.
Verjetno je Sveto pismo tako prirejeno, da je bilo všečno Rimljanom. Kot Pilat, ki ni hotel ubiti Jezusa, ampak so Silili v njega. V resnici Rimljani niso trpeli, da bi nekdo se imel za boga, ker so bili bogovi njihovi cesarji. In Pilat naj bi bil "mesar".
Kot sovražnik Jezusa sta bila Juda Herod in Juda Iškariot, ter tisti, ki so vpili križaj ga. TOrej vse izgleda, da so se hoteli s takšnim pisanjem prešvercati preko nevarnih Rimljanov.

[Vedež]

In ker je človek del boga, ste vse skupaj zavrteli v ciklon, kjer ima vsak po svoje prav (različna stališča vodijo k istemu cilju - vedeti je potrebno le na kateri točki se nahajaš).

Vse skupaj pa je le igra. Tudi Hawking bo to nekoč sprevidel ...