Have you counted or calculated?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So what do you think of the 42 months at verse 5 of Revelation 13? Are they literal? Do they refer to a period of time? Or are they merely symbolic?

Our new member Code Breaker has declared that the number 2520 is the "number of time." It is interesting that it relates to the times in Revelation as follows:

2520 x 1/2 = 1260

2520 x 1/60 = 42

2520 x 1/360 = 7

2520 x 1/720 = 3.5

The number 2520 is also distinguished as being the smallest number divisible by all 9 digits. It also is half of the 7th factorial: 2520 = 7!/2.

Richard

[ccc]

Richard, you said: As for Jesus 'calling' Peter 'Satan’ – do you really think that Jesus was telling Satan to feed His sheep?

No I do not … I am not as bright as most here, nor am I quite as stupid as you may think.

Jesus did not call Peter Satan in the passage you quoted. However following your passage about feeding His sheep, He said:

Verily, verily, I say unto thee. When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. John 21:18-19.

Some theologians believe this is referring to the 'Church of Peter' in it’s old age ... even some RC theologians have thought that scripture indicates that their church would become apostate in it’s old age.

When God destroys that great city Mystery, Babylon, God will be glorified, but few will understand what city that is until the event has come to pass.

Richard, you said:

Most people who attack the Catholic Church also attack their claim to be founded by Peter. I find (it) very strange that you have sought to attack the Apostle Peter himself. What do you think of the letters he wrote? Are they Sacred Scripture? If so, what’s up with calling him 'Satan'?

I find that a very low blow about attacking the Apostle Peter himself and my thoughts on Sacred Scripture.

Perhaps you misunderstood where I stated: 'Peter' being the representative of the papacy, I know that it puts him on the side of evil because of the testimony of the Reformation saints and martyrs.' 'Him' was clearly in reference to the papal Peter.

I have stated that ‘Peter’ represents the papacy. That is denied by none. I believe that their 'sign' is the identifying mark of the beast. If you seriously believe that I am referring to the real Peter, I am out of here.


There is a ‘real Mary’ and there is the one that is venerated.
There is a ‘real Peter’ and there is the one that is worshiped … the one who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God … sitting in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The papal Peters claim to be 'as God on earth' and the Vicars of Christ.
Vicarious … in place of Christ … instead of Christ.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, you said: As for Jesus 'calling' Peter 'Satan’ – do you really think that Jesus was telling Satan to feed His sheep?

No I do not … I am not as bright as most here, nor am I quite as stupid as you may think.

Hey there ccc,

No, I do not think you are stupid,and I'm sorry that anything I wrote gave you occasion to ask such a question. I was just following your lead when you asked why Jesus called Peter "Satan." There is always a big danger of misunderstanding each other in forums like this, so please accept my apologies.

Jesus did not call Peter Satan in the passage you quoted. However following your passage about feeding His sheep, He said:

Verily, verily, I say unto thee. When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. John 21:18-19.

Some theologians believe this is referring to the 'Church of Peter' in it’s old age ... even some RC theologians have thought that scripture indicates that their church would become apostate in it’s old age.

I've never heard that before. It makes sense in a biblical sort of way, by which I mean that the Bible often uses a person to represent a whole group (e.g. Jacob = Israel), but since there is no confirmation in other Scriptures for "Peter" as the "Church" I would say it is a very unlikely speculation. And of course, there is the fact that the RCC always identifies "herself" with Mary, a woman (as the Bride of Christ), rather than Peter, a man (as a representative of Christ).

When God destroys that great city Mystery, Babylon, God will be glorified, but few will understand what city that is until the event has come to pass.

And why won't they understand? I think its because really bad prophecy teachers (I'm not talking about you!) have misled the sheep for generations with their unfounded imaginations and unprincipled speculations about a 2000+ year gap in Daniel's Seventy Weeks, a pre-mill rapture, a rebuilt temple, etc. Without a solid foundation built on fundamental biblical principles, no one can properly understand the Book of Revelation.

Richard, you said:

Most people who attack the Catholic Church also attack their claim to be founded by Peter. I find (it) very strange that you have sought to attack the Apostle Peter himself. What do you think of the letters he wrote? Are they Sacred Scripture? If so, what’s up with calling him 'Satan'?

I find that a very low blow about attacking the Apostle Peter himself and my thoughts on Sacred Scripture.

I am sorry it seemed like a "low blow." That's not how I intended it at all. Again, I was only following your lead, and asking questions that seemed to follow from what you were asserting. You asked why Jesus called Peter "Satan" and you asked that in the context of asserting that "Peter's Church" was apostate, so I was just trying to put the pieces together.

Take a look at the exchange. You tossed out a one-line question "Do all reading this actually believe it to be a mere 'coincidence' that the only person Jesus ever called Satan (other than Satan himself) was Peter?" and I tossed back a brief response. There is no real cause for offense here, is there?

I think this is a perfect example of a misunderstanding. I was reading your post, and I got the impression that you were attacking Peter. Now a more careful reading might have led me to understand that you were distinguishing between "Peter the Apostle" and "Peter the representative of the Papacy" but then again, maybe not, since you brought up the business about Christ calling the Peter the Apostle "Satan" and wanted that to refer to Peter as a representative of the Papacy.

Perhaps you misunderstood where I stated: 'Peter' being the representative of the papacy, I know that it puts him on the side of evil because of the testimony of the Reformation saints and martyrs.' 'Him' was clearly in reference to the papal Peter.

Yes, I think there is a huge misunderstanding here. The true Peter is definitely on the side of Christ, since he was a true apostle and true prophet of God. Therefore, the true Peter can not be the true representative of the Papacy if the Papacy is truly "on the side of evil." Do you see why your assertions are very confusing? I can not tell the "good" from the "bad" in what you have written.

I have stated that ‘Peter’ represents the papacy. That is denied by none.

I deny it vehemently! Sure, everyone agrees that the Papacy claims Peter as their first Pope, but most Protestants deny the validity of that claim, and say that the real Peter does NOT represent the Papacy.

This is why it sounded like you are agreeing with the Papal claim to founded by Christ through Peter. But now I am seeing that you think "Peter the representative of the Papacy" is a biblical symbol that God superimposed upon "Peter the Apostle" but that "Peter the Apostle" is not really the first Pope and founder of the Papacy. Is that closer to what you believe?

I believe that their 'sign' is the identifying mark of the beast. If you seriously believe that I am referring to the real Peter, I am out of here.

Now do you see why its all so confusing? You are using the name of the real Peter as the identifier, and you cite the time Jesus called the real Peter "Satan" but now you get mad when I think you are talking about the "real Peter."

I think we can sort this out if you don't take too much offense at me. I'm just talking to you truthfully how things seem. And let me be the first to admit that I am often wrong and make many errors like everybody else, and I will admit it if I do.

There is a ‘real Mary’ and there is the one that is venerated.
There is a ‘real Peter’ and there is the one that is worshiped … the one who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God … sitting in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The papal Peters claim to be 'as God on earth' and the Vicars of Christ.
Vicarious … in place of Christ … instead of Christ.

I understand your point. And yes, the abuses of past Popes are legion - but we also must remember that there has been a war between two factions - Protestants and Catholics - and TRUTH is always the first casualty of war. Lies are told about both sides, and so I am cautious to check the facts before I make a conclusion.

But as for the direct application of 2 Thess 2:4 to the RCC - that is debated. I am will to discuss it and look at the evidence. But don't get upset if I question something. Just prove me wrong and then I will tip my hat and say "Thanks!"

Only a fool would willfully persist in known error, correct?

Richard

[shalag]

I am speaking as one who was 'raised Catholic': baptized as a child, first communion, confirmed, sang two Masses a day, celebrated advent, lent, the stations of the cross, crowning Mary May queen, Easter, Christmas, and twelve years of strict Catholic education, etc. I have spent a lot of time searching for God. I went from there, to nothing, to the charismatics, Mormons, JW's, 7-Day, Messianic Jews, and pentecostals. It was the latter three that actually started introducing me to serious bible study. I didn't so much seek these religions but worked with people who espoused them and as such got drawn in because of my great lack of relationship with 'knowing Christ'.

I will simply address Peter here. Simon, later surnamed Peter, was a non-religious Jew, a Galilean, chosen by Jesus Christ to 'follow him' and after Jesus death was given the authority and leadership of JEWS who followed the teachings of Christ. It was PAUL who was given the ministry to the 'uncircumcised' - the Gentiles:

Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me (Paul), as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

Galatians 2:8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles)

Peter was dead by a few hundred years at the establishment of the RCC. He had no hand in its establishment. It would have made more sense to have Paul as the first Pope, as he carried the gospel to the uncircumcised, (non-Jews to include Romans) and also having been born in Tarsus claimed Roman citizenship.

The focus of our faith is Christ. The problem I have with 'anti-Christ' is this. Whether Catholic, Protestant, even the considered cults, Mormon, JW, etc - - they ALL RECOGNIZE the authority of Christ no matter how skewed the doctrine. On the other hand both Judaism and Islam are the major ANTI-CHRIST espousers. The Jews are beloved for the patriarch's sake (Romans 11:28) but enemies of the gospel. The Jews are essentially non-confrontational due to their smaller numbers while the Islamics, with vast numbers, are ardent in their anti-Jew and anti-Christ stance.

Whether Jew or 'Christian' we, like Paul, need to consider the 'upward call in Christ. Paul was one of the highest religious scholars of all time - but he considered it 'all dung' for the upward call in Christ. Should our attention be on the differences of our 'brothers' - or should it be directed to those who are our enemies?

It is sad that a distinction need be made as 'Catholic, Christian, Protestant, non-denominational'. We should limit our thinking to 'Christ - or NOT Christ'. He is our life - or He is NOT our life. I have learned that I will never change a person's 'religion'. My hope is to simply share Christ that it will strengthen our belief in Him.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Whether Jew or 'Christian' we, like Paul, need to consider the 'upward call in Christ. Paul was one of the highest religious scholars of all time - but he considered it 'all dung' for the upward call in Christ. Should our attention be on the differences of our 'brothers' - or should it be directed to those who are our enemies?

It is sad that a distinction need be made as 'Catholic, Christian, Protestant, non-denominational'. We should limit our thinking to 'Christ - or NOT Christ'. He is our life - or He is NOT our life. I have learned that I will never change a person's 'religion'. My hope is to simply share Christ that it will strengthen our belief in Him.

Excellent post shalag!

Your point concerning Islam as "anti-christ" is particularly intriguing in this discussion, because Code Breaker (I think) sees them as the the "beast" (rather than the RCC). It would be interesting if Code breaker would clarify his view. In any case, my point is that it is not self-evident that the RCC is the "beast" of Revelation. It all depends first of all which of the four primary views (or even some others) are taken as the interpretational scheme of Revelation, and even then there are multiple possibilities.

Richard

[ccc]

Yes Richard, as you said, There is always a big danger of misunderstanding each other in forums like this ……

Apology gratefully accepted. I ask your forgiveness also, as I reacted in anger.

Regarding Peter’s death 'in his old age' as being the death (or destruction) of the Church of Peter in the last days, you indicated that it makes sense in a biblical sort of way. Jacob = Israel, but since there is no confirmation in other Scriptures for 'Peter' as the 'Church' I would say it is a very unlikely speculation. And of course, there is the fact that the RCC always identifies 'herself' with Mary, a woman (as the Bride of Christ), rather than Peter, a man (as a representative of Christ).

Again, perhaps I am misunderstanding, where you say that there is no confirmation in other Scriptures for 'Peter' as the 'Church' … that it would very likely be speculation to associate Peter with the Church.

Naturally you and I do not believe that Peter is the Church, but does not Scripture give a form of 'confirmation' that you said does not exist? Granted, a wrong interpretation by many, but at surface reading, it does 'say that'.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church … Matt 16:18. Confirmation does not exist for you and I, but it surely does for the Church Of Rome.

You continued to say … And of course, there is the fact that the RCC always identifies 'herself' with Mary, a woman (as the Bride of Christ), rather than Peter, a man (as a representative of Christ).

Just as you had not heard about theologians relating Peter’s death in his 'old age' being the RC church in the last days, I must admit that I was not aware that they always identify their church with Mary. I am aware of religion and church identified as feminine and the Bride of Christ, but I truly did not know about Mary as their church.

Most common terms for me have been:
The Church of Peter
The Chair of Peter
Each pope being 'The Image And Successor Of Peter'.

You may recall I had noted that when Pope Paul VI addressed the United Nations, he said 'Do you know who I am? My name is Peter'.

Regarding speculations about a 2000 year gap, a pre-mill rapture and a rebuilt temple, we are on the same page there.

As to Jesus calling Peter 'Satan'. Naturally, we know that Peter is not Satan, but I see this as a 'sign' to students of prophecy. How do you see it? Do you think it has nothing to do with the 'papal peter' and prophecy?

I know that you have not come to a conclusion regarding God’s purpose for the sign in the net (153) but again, I see it as a numeric 'sign' in that it is 'Peter' that does the counting and that the word (peter) that Jesus 'added' to Simon is associated with 'counting' as small stones were used for that purpose during biblical times. Not proof, but can we rule it out being circumstantial evidence?

Again, not proof, but the distinguished professor JA Emerton (editor of several commentaries according to my son-in-law) does not rule out that the solution for this 'sign' may be found in gematria … similar to the numbering of the beast. My son-in-law pastors a very conservative Reformed Church in the USA. I think you and he would have some good discussions, as he is amill, partial preterist. I am amill but historicist. He doesn’t agree with me, but he has to listen to me as he is married to my daughter!

Regarding how I have used the term 'Peter' in a confusing way. You said: But now l am seeing that you think 'Peter the representative of the Papacy' is a biblical symbol that God superimposed upon 'Peter the Apostle' but that 'Peter the Apostle' is not really the first Pope and founder of the Papacy. Is that closer to what you (ccc) believe?

That is it exactly! I think (we) have a tendency to 'assume' that others know exactly what we are talking about … it is so 'clear to us' but it may be clear as mud to others. I will try to be more specific, and realize that others may not be on the same page.

You said … But as for the direct application of 2 Thess 2:4 to the RCC – that is debated. I am willing to discuss it and look at the evidence. But don’t get upset if I question something. Just prove me wrong and then I will tip my hat and say 'Thanks!'

I will soon present some evidence that was convincing for me.
That would be a preterist 'soon' … not 2000 years from now.






















.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes Richard, as you said, There is always a big danger of misunderstanding each other in forums like this ……

Apology gratefully accepted. I ask your forgiveness also, as I reacted in anger.

Hey there ccc .... glad we are on track again, my friend.

Regarding Peter’s death 'in his old age' as being the death (or destruction) of the Church of Peter in the last days, you indicated that it makes sense in a biblical sort of way. Jacob = Israel, but since there is no confirmation in other Scriptures for 'Peter' as the 'Church' I would say it is a very unlikely speculation. And of course, there is the fact that the RCC always identifies 'herself' with Mary, a woman (as the Bride of Christ), rather than Peter, a man (as a representative of Christ).

Again, perhaps I am misunderstanding, where you say that there is no confirmation in other Scriptures for 'Peter' as the 'Church' … that it would very likely be speculation to associate Peter with the Church.

Naturally you and I do not believe that Peter is the Church, but does not Scripture give a form of 'confirmation' that you said does not exist? Granted, a wrong interpretation by many, but at surface reading, it does 'say that'.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church … Matt 16:18. Confirmation does not exist for you and I, but it surely does for the Church Of Rome.

You continued to say … And of course, there is the fact that the RCC always identifies 'herself' with Mary, a woman (as the Bride of Christ), rather than Peter, a man (as a representative of Christ).

Just as you had not heard about theologians relating Peter’s death in his 'old age' being the RC church in the last days, I must admit that I was not aware that they always identify their church with Mary. I am aware of religion and church identified as feminine and the Bride of Christ, but I truly did not know about Mary as their church.

Yes, I agree that would be a "confirmation." But now it seems like you are building a case for Peter as a biblical representation of the Roman Catholic Church. But you don't believe that do you? I mean, you don't believe the RCC doctrine that they really were founded by Christ on Peter, correct? I get the impression you sorta want to "have your cake and eat it too." Could you clarify this for me?

As for Mary, the RCC has long identified her as a "Type" of the Church. Here's the explanation from Vatican II (note that the tradition is ancient, going back at least as far as Ambrose, the 4th century bishop of Milan)

Mary, type or figure of the Church
By reason of the gift and role of her divine motherhood, by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer, and with her unique graces and functions, the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united to the Church. As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity, and perfect union with Christ.[18] For in the mystery of the Church, which is itself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion as exemplar both of virgin and mother.[19] Through her faith and obedience she gave birth on earth to the very Son of the Father, not through the knowledge of man but by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, in the manner of a new Eve who placed her faith, not in the serpent of old but in God's messenger without waivering in doubt. The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first born among many brethren (Rom. 8:29), that is, the faithful, in whose generation and formation she cooperates with a mother's love.

As an aside, I have always thought that the Catholic identification of Mary as the "new Eve" was interesting in light of this identity:

Μαρια (Maria) = 152 = 8 (New) x 19 (Eve)

Most common terms for me have been:
The Church of Peter
The Chair of Peter
Each pope being 'The Image And Successor Of Peter'.

You may recall I had noted that when Pope Paul VI addressed the United Nations, he said 'Do you know who I am? My name is Peter'.

Yes, of course, the Pope identifies with Peter, but the Church identifies with Mary. This follows the pattern mentioned above - the Church is always feminine (bride of Christ) and the Pope, as representing Peter/Christ is masculine (the groom).

Regarding speculations about a 2000 year gap, a pre-mill rapture and a rebuilt temple, we are on the same page there.

That's good to know!

As to Jesus calling Peter 'Satan'. Naturally, we know that Peter is not Satan, but I see this as a 'sign' to students of prophecy. How do you see it? Do you think it has nothing to do with the 'papal peter' and prophecy?

The thought that Christ was speaking "prophetically" to Peter as the representative of the future apostate RCC had never occurred to me until you suggested it. There is nothing about your suggestion that seem "likely" to me. Jesus called Peter "Satan" because he was opposing (satan means adversary) the God's Plan to have Christ crucified. It seems to me that we have a full and correct understanding of that verse without trying to apply it to the "end times apostate RCC." But your idea is not necessarily wrong either. It doesn't contradict anything that I know of in the Bible.

I know that you have not come to a conclusion regarding God’s purpose for the sign in the net (153) but again, I see it as a numeric 'sign' in that it is 'Peter' that does the counting and that the word (peter) that Jesus 'added' to Simon is associated with 'counting' as small stones were used for that purpose during biblical times. Not proof, but can we rule it out being circumstantial evidence?

Yes, it is all mere coincidence, drawn from a veritable mountain of possible two and three word phrases. The density of words and phrases in the range that you specify (say values between 100 to 200) is such that no meaning whatsoever can be assigned to the results. You can get everything from "Jesus is Lord" = 151 = "Lucifer is Lord" = "Ding Dong is rancid."

Now I am glad you brought up numbers again, because you never answered my previous post. I had noted that you do not use the numbers to "confirm" anything. Here is what I wrote:

That is exactly what I thought. The numbers themselves don't give you any information at all, do they? If you believed that "Peter's Church" was a good and true church, you would say that this is confirmed by the fact it equals 144, the Number of the Elect. But since you think it is an evil church, you say that this is confirmed by the "bad" identities. So the numbers you list don't prove anything at all, do they?

Could you please address this specific point?

Again, not proof, but the distinguished professor JA Emerton (editor of several commentaries according to my son-in-law) does not rule out that the solution for this 'sign' may be found in gematria … similar to the numbering of the beast. My son-in-law pastors a very conservative Reformed Church in the USA. I think you and he would have some good discussions, as he is amill, partial preterist. I am amill but historicist. He doesn’t agree with me, but he has to listen to me as he is married to my daughter!

It sounds like a real blessing to have a committed Christian brother as a son-in-law, regardless of his stance on Revelation.

Now as the meaning of 153, I have never said that Gematria wouldn't play an important role in understanding it. I just said that I didn't have it all "figured out" myself yet. But I do have some pretty good clues. Of course, I do not believe that English gematria will play a role, at least not the English Gematria that you have suggested, because the overlap is too large, so there is no way anyone can discern chance from design.

Regarding how I have used the term 'Peter' in a confusing way. You said: But now l am seeing that you think 'Peter the representative of the Papacy' is a biblical symbol that God superimposed upon 'Peter the Apostle' but that 'Peter the Apostle' is not really the first Pope and founder of the Papacy. Is that closer to what you (ccc) believe?

That is it exactly! I think (we) have a tendency to 'assume' that others know exactly what we are talking about … it is so 'clear to us' but it may be clear as mud to others. I will try to be more specific, and realize that others may not be on the same page.

Yep! That is the cause of 99% of all misunderstandings! Glad we are getting closer to an understanding.

My primary problem with this idea is that it assumes that God chose to use the real Apostle Peter as a symbol of the apostate RCC when in fact the assertion that the RCC was founded on Peter is not true. That just doesn't "ring" true to me. But I'm open to discussing it more.

You said … But as for the direct application of 2 Thess 2:4 to the RCC – that is debated. I am willing to discuss it and look at the evidence. But don’t get upset if I question something. Just prove me wrong and then I will tip my hat and say 'Thanks!'

I will soon present some evidence that was convincing for me.
That would be a preterist 'soon' … not 2000 years from now.
.

Hahaha! "The Preterist 'soon'" - that's a good one!


Richard

[ccc]

Hi Richard,

Regarding the sign in the net, I had asked if you do not see it as a numeric 'sign' in that it is Peter that does the counting of the fish and that the word (peter) that Jesus 'added' to Simon is associated with 'counting' as small stones were used for that purpose during biblical times.

I did not speak about the 'counting' of the number of the beast being associated with the number 153, but you likely made that connection.

Your answer was: 'Yes, it is all mere coincidence, drawn from a veritable mountain of possible two and three word phrases … '

Here is an example of a possible miscommunication or an assumption.
You likely assumed I was referring to 'English gematria'.

I was not, as I know your position on that subject. Leaving that thought out of the question posed, how might you now answer?

'I know that you have not come to a conclusion regarding God’s purpose for the sign in the net (153) but again, I see it as a numeric 'sign' in that it is 'Peter' that does the counting (of the fish) and that the word (peter) that Jesus 'added' to Simon is associated with 'counting' as small stones were used for that purpose during biblical times. Not proof, but can we rule it out being circumstantial evidence?'

So much to say, and so little time.

You had asked me to address a specific point that I had not answered. You had noted that I do not use the numbers to 'confirm' anything. That followed by a paragraph regarding good and bad numerical identities … ie 144 as the 'bad church' and 144 as the 'elect'.

Let me think about that, and in the mean time, from the computations that you use of biblical Hebrew and Greek gematria, do you use your 'numbers' as good and/or bad identities? Does the same number only apply to one or the other or can it be either or?

You noted that I do not use the numbers to 'confirm' anything.
Other than the inspiration of Scripture through mathematics, do your numbers 'confirm' anything else?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Regarding the sign in the net, I had asked if you do not see it as a numeric 'sign' in that it is Peter that does the counting of the fish and that the word (peter) that Jesus 'added' to Simon is associated with 'counting' as small stones were used for that purpose during biblical times.

The text says that Peter drew the net to land, but it doesn't say that he is the one who counted the fish. But even if he did do the counting, his name petros is not directly connected with the idea of counting. The words "count" used in Rev 13:18 is Strong's 5585:

ψηφιζω psephizo {psay-fid'-zo} from 5586; TDNT - 9:604,1341; v AV - count 2; 2 1) to count with pebbles, to compute, calculate, reckon 2) to give one's vote by casting a pebble into the urn 3) to decide by voting

This from Strong's 5586:

ψηφος psephos {psay'-fos} from the same as 5584; TDNT - 9:604,1341; n f AV - stone 2, voice 1; 3 1) a small worn smooth stone, a pebble 1a) in the ancient courts of justice the accused were condemned by black pebbles and the acquitted by white 2) a vote (on account of the use of pebbles in voting)

So there is no direct connection between Peter's name and the idea of counting the 153 fish in John 21.

I did not speak about the 'counting' of the number of the beast being associated with the number 153, but you likely made that connection.

Your answer was: 'Yes, it is all mere coincidence, drawn from a veritable mountain of possible two and three word phrases … '

Here is an example of a possible miscommunication or an assumption.
You likely assumed I was referring to 'English gematria'.

I was not, as I know your position on that subject. Leaving that thought out of the question posed, how might you now answer?

Yes, I thought you were talking about English gematria, since that has been the topic of this thread. As for Greek or Hebrew gematria, I agree that the full understanding of the number 153 probably requires it. But I don't think it has anything to do with a "sign" concerning "Simon Peter."

'I know that you have not come to a conclusion regarding God’s purpose for the sign in the net (153) but again, I see it as a numeric 'sign' in that it is 'Peter' that does the counting (of the fish) and that the word (peter) that Jesus 'added' to Simon is associated with 'counting' as small stones were used for that purpose during biblical times. Not proof, but can we rule it out being circumstantial evidence?'

I don't see any connection at all. The word "petros" is entirey different that "psephos."

You had asked me to address a specific point that I had not answered. You had noted that I do not use the numbers to 'confirm' anything. That followed by a paragraph regarding good and bad numerical identities … ie 144 as the 'bad church' and 144 as the 'elect'.

Let me think about that, and in the mean time, from the computations that you use of biblical Hebrew and Greek gematria, do you use your 'numbers' as good and/or bad identities? Does the same number only apply to one or the other or can it be either or?

You noted that I do not use the numbers to 'confirm' anything.
Other than the inspiration of Scripture through mathematics, do your numbers 'confirm' anything else?

The numbers in the Bible were designed by God and they express real meaning. For example, the Number 2 has to do with division, thus we see the waters divided on the Second Day, the prohibition of images in the Second Commandment, the Sword (instrument of division) given to the Second Horseman and all of this descends from the Nature of the Second Person of the Godhead, God the Son (Ben - Second Letter Bet KeyWord) whose name is called the Word of God which is represented by a two-edged sword in Scripture. This kind of divine coherence is seen throughout the Bible. Another obvious example is the the sixfold symmetry of the hexagon star pairs that emerge from the geometry of Genesis 1.1. Thus the underlying mathematical geometry is integrated with the plain text which describes the creation in six days. And again we see it in the Shema, whch is built on ascending multiples of 13 = One = Love, and God is ONE = 3 x ONE declares the Trinity in perfect harmony with the actual numbers used to to write the prime 13 in base ten. And then there is the Logos Holograph that is designed on the pattern of the Logos Star 373 built of 3 and 7 just like Gen 1.1, and so on and on and on ... There is nothing like it in English gematria. It comes from the infinite intelligence of Almighty God and coheres as tightly as any text on advanced mathematics or quantum physics.

Richard

[ccc]

Yes Richard ... re Peter and 153, I should have said "associated" with the counting, as Jesus did not specify anyone in particular to do this.

Regarding your numbers as good/or bad identities, does the same number only apply to one or the other or can it be either or?

I was actually asking about your gematria numbers, not the holographs and patterns etc..