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 http://www.sounddoctrine.com/666.htm. 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)