Wednesday, October 11, 2006

The number of the beast

Not all, it seems, were convinced by my last post. Those among the company of the redeemed (Mike, TB etc.) saw the truth of my statements, of course. However, Brian, for example, chose to give my opinion a rap on the knuckles claiming that I was wrong about Wright (yes, I made that last clever little word play up all by myself). Well, this post is for his sort.

I’ve done some original and important research on the question of Bultmann tonight and discovered something shocking. Even Jim West will be recanting of his Bultmania after this.

Look at the name very, very closely:

Rudolf Karl Bultmann

Now, if each letter of his name corresponds with a number, such that A=2, B=3, C=4 and so on, his initials are the following numbers: R=19, K=12 and B, as already noted = 3.

Don’t look at me like that! It’s possible that this is how the early Christians coded the name Nero in Revelation, so what I’m doing has scriptural warrant (Rev 13:18).

Anyway, take the numbers represented by Bultmann’s initials and we have 19, 12 and 3. Now multiply 19 by 12 by 3, and what do you get? 684.

If that wasn’t dubious enough, the really shocking facts start to unfold if one then subtracts the number of letters in Bultmann’s full name (18 in all) from this total. The result is not suprising.



Yes, we knew it all along! Bultmann may well be the beast of Revelation; not Nero, Bush, Kofi Annan or any of the other popular candidates.

And what about the name ‘Nicholas Thomas Wright’?

Using the exact same numbering system, his initials work out as 15, 21 and 24.

Once again, 15 x 21 x 24 = 7560

However, and this is the spooky bit, subtract 6783 from 7560 and you get this:


I for one am not surprised. I hope that this has given the likes of Brian something to think about.

Let’s face it: The quality of exegesis and theological reasoning on Chrisendom is breathtaking. Don’t forget, you heard this scoop on Bultmann and Wright here first.

(Artwork via the rather amusing They claim 'You will probably get a real laugh from this page if you are not a Bible Believer'. That sentence was so close to being correct. So close. Minus the words 'if you are not a Bible Believer', we would have had it)


At 10/12/2006 12:34 AM, Anonymous J. B. Hood said...

Finally, some biblical exegesis! Sheez! It's about time this blog got down to the nitty gritty of serious biblical scholarship!

At 10/12/2006 1:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well after this showing of such brilliant, ground-breaking scholarship, I Derek Brown hereby retract--nay, repent of any and all negative comments towards the honorable Chris Tilling. May his days of useful and edifying research be many and joyfilled.

At 10/12/2006 2:25 AM, Anonymous Chris Tilling said...

I'm of course assuming that neither of you are being sarcastic.

At 10/12/2006 3:45 AM, Anonymous byron smith said...

That's amazing.

If only we knew Chris Tilling's middle name...

At 10/12/2006 4:24 AM, Anonymous Frank said...


That made my day =D.

At 10/12/2006 12:06 PM, Anonymous Shane Clifton said...

To quote St Augustine, The Trinity IV: 2

This proportion of the single to the double arises from the number 3; for 1 and 2 make 3. But all this i havew just mentioned comes to the number 6; 1 and 2 and 3 make 6. This number is called perfect because it it made up of its parts, of which it has three, a sixth, a third, and a half, or has it any other part which is a simple fraction of it. . . . Even a single year, if it is thought of as consisting of 12 whole months of 30 days each (that was the month observed byu the ancients, following the lunar cycle) is well furnished with the number 6. What 6 is in the first order of numbers, which consists of units and goes up to 10, that 60 is in the second order which consists of tens and gos up to 100. So the number of 60 days is a sixth part of the lunar year. Thus, multiply the 6 number of the second order by the 6 number of the first order, and you get 6 times 60, 360 days, which are the 12 whole months.

And so it continues. In other words, your brilliant exegesis has a wonderful heritage.

At 10/12/2006 5:07 PM, Anonymous Brian said...

Well, Chris, differences aside, I do appreciate reading the blog and I have certainly learned bunches since "discovering" it awhile ago. As the Scriptures say "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another," no?

As to Wright, I realize not all his work is problematic, and I've heard his huge book on the resurrection is the best available, yet I mainly just take issues in certain points of the NPP. At the same time I am with Jim West on the fact that it seems like every other blog these days is about Wright.

At 10/12/2006 8:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I never knew you were a Revelation scholar! The vast multitude of speculations that come with the practice of gematria is simply astounding. More and more I am in agreement with Ireneaus who said that we should give up on any attempts at a positive identification. Although, It's still fun to try.

At 10/13/2006 12:18 AM, Anonymous John Dekker said...

Well, they didn't say if and only if you're not a believer. ;)

At 10/13/2006 12:56 AM, Anonymous Chris Tilling said...

Greetings all, especially John and Frank (new to Chrisendom I think).

Brian, I hope you know I was only joking in naming you in this post!

I would strongly recommend his Paul: Fresh Perspectives, as well as the other two in his Christian Origins series, the two preceeding his work on the resurrection. However, surely you are right that the whole 'groupy' thing is tiresome!

Alan, I leave it to you to feed my, as Shane pointed out, veritably Augustinian insights into the world of Revelation scholarhsip ...

At 10/13/2006 7:42 PM, Anonymous Brian said...

Yes, I know it was a joke. its hard to convey that sometimes.


Post a Comment

<< Home