Jewish kabbalists

[inquirer]

Did any Jewish kabbalists use gematria to "prove" that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, or to set dates for the Messiah's comming, or the redemption of Israel?

[sylvius]

Did any Jewish kabbalists use gematria to "prove" that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, or to set dates for the Messiah's comming, or the redemption of Israel?


I heard from an Italian Jewish kabbalist "Jesus is the beast" because the gematria of "Yeshu Notsri" is 666 (10+300+6+50+90+200+10), written with seven letters (seven heads) ("yud-shin-vav-nun-tzade-resh-yud") with ten horns ("shin"- three horns - "tzade" two horns - the other 5 letters each one horn).

[sylvius]

I heard from an Italian Jewish kabbalist "Jesus is the beast" because the gematria of "Yeshu Notsri" is 666 (10+300+6+50+90+200+10), written with seven letters (seven heads) ("yud-shin-vav-nun-tzade-resh-yud") with ten horns ("shin"- three horns - "tzade" two horns - the other 5 letters each one horn).


It would prove my point that everything turns around the name of God present in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamyim" -- name that is not there when the letter "hey" of "hashishi" is missing, since the name written on the cross is not "yeshu notsri" but "yeshu hanotsri", with an extra letter "hey".


John 19:19-20,

ἔγραψεν δὲ καὶ τίτλον ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ: ἦν δὲ γεγραμμένον, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον πολλοὶ ἀνέγνωσαν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς: καὶ ἦν γεγραμμένον Ἑβραϊστί, Ῥωμαϊστί, Ἑλληνιστί.


Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, “Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews.� Many of the Jews read this inscription, for sthe place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.


Latin doesn't know defintie articles.

In Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum, abbreviated to ( the well-known) INRI

So in short: "The beast" is the Jesus of Christianity.

[sylvius]

If you want to object that his Hebrew name was not Yeshu, but Yeshua (like many do contend) or Yehoshua, then you might consider this:

http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/sreply/53016/Yeshua-in-Hebrew


1. When a Hebrew word or name is transliterated into Greek letters, the Hebrew letter י yod is replaced by iota (I,ι) and the Hebrew letter ש shin is replaced by sigma (Σ,σ or ς at the end of a word) because the Greek language lacks both of the consonantal sounds y and sh; and, furthermore, men’s names regularly end with -s in Greek (e.g. Ἀρίσταρχος ArÃ*starchos, Ἀρχιμήδης Archimēdes, Μωσῆς Mōsēs, etc etc etc).

2. The Biblical Hebrew name יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ Y'hoshu'a started to be shortened to יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a during the Babylonian Exile period, and this was shortened still further to יֵֽשׁוּ Yéshu in the post-Biblical period after the Return (christians sometimes claim that this form of the name is really just an insulting acronym that “stands forâ€� the Hebrew phrase יִמַּח שְׁמוֹ וְזִכְרוֹ yimmaḥ sh'mo v'zichro “may his name and memory be blotted outâ€�, but this simply isn’t true because nobody would ever say, for example, “Hitler yéshuâ€�—when that phrase is used, it’s always written out or spoken in full: “Hitler yimmaḥ sh'mo v'zichroâ€�).

3. The combined result of 1. and 2. is that “Yéshu'aâ€� becomes Ἰησοῦας (Iēsouas) when transliterated from Hebrew into Greek letters, and “Yéshuâ€� becomes Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous)—and then, when these names undergo a second transliteration from Greek into Latin letters, they become respectively “Jesuasâ€� and “J-susâ€� (because the initial “Iâ€� was replaced by “Jâ€� from the Middle Ages onwards).

4. The christian mangod is consistently called Ἰησοῦς Iēsous (apparently a transliteration of the Hebrew name יֵֽשׁוּ Yéshu) throughout the new twistament, but this is only part of the story. I have been able to find fourteen Hebrew names in the T'nach that begin with the letters יְהוֹ־ (“Y'ho–â€�) in Hebrew, and the transliterations of these names in the pseudo-septuagint begin with Ιω– (“Io–â€�) in all of these 14 cases with one single, solitary exception:

1. יְהוֹאָחָז Y'ho'aḥaz is spelt Ιωαχας (“Ioakhasâ€�),
2. יְהוֹאָשׁ Y'ho'ash is spelt Ιωας (“Ioasâ€�),
3. יְהוֹזָבָד Y'hozavad is spelt Ιωζαβεδ (“Iozabedâ€�),
4. יְהוֹיָכִין Y'hoyachin is spelt Ιωακιμ (“Ioakimâ€�) [although this is actually an error],
5. יְהוֹיָקִים Y'hoyachin is also spelt Ιωακιμ (“Ioakimâ€�),
6. יְהוֹנָדָב Y'honadav is spelt Ιωναδαβ (“Ioanadabâ€�),
7. יְהוֹנָתָן Y'honatan is spelt Ιωναθαν (“Ioanathanâ€�),
8. יְהוֹעַדִּין Y'ho'addin is spelt Ιωαδιν (“Ioadinâ€�),
9. יְהוֹצָדָק Y'hotzadak is spelt Ιωσαδακ (“Iosadakâ€�),
10. יְהוֹרָם Y'horam is spelt Ιωραμ (“Ioramâ€�),
11. יְהוֹשֶֽׁבַע Y'hosheva is spelt Ιωσαβεε (“Iosabeeâ€�),
12. יְהוֹשַׁבְעַת Y'hoshav'at is spelt Ιωσαβεθ (“Iosabethâ€�), and
13. יְהוֹשָׁפָט Y'hoshafat is spelt Ιωσαφατ (“Iosaphatâ€�),

BUT

14. יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ Y'hoshu'a is spelt Ἰησοῦς (“Iēsousâ€�).


In fact, יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ Y'hoshu'a is the only Hebrew name starting with the letters יְהוֹ־ (“Y'ho–â€�) whose transliteration in the pseudo-septuagint doesn’t begin with Ιω– (“Io–â€�), which is mighty suspicious because this makes it look very much as though the spelling of the Greek transliteration of the name יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ Y'hoshu'a has been deliberately altered to make it match the way יֵֽשׁוּ Yéshu (“J-susâ€�) is spelt in the additional Greek texts that christians print as a kind of “supplementâ€� to their bibles and which they pretend are a “continuationâ€� of the books they stole from us.

[sylvius]

I guess Mark also plays with "Yeshu (ha)Notsri"

Mark 1:9 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου.

Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ = Jesus of Nazareth = Yeshu Notsri

Mark 16:6, ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς, Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε: Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον: ἠγέρθη, οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε: ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν.

Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζαρηνὸς = Yeshu haNotsri

[sylvius]

John 1:48 “Before Philip called you, I saw you under the fig tree.�

The fig tree said to be the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

We saw "b'hibaram" to be the 474th word of the Hebrew bible.

474 being gematria of "da'at"= knowledge.

"b'hibaram" to be read as "with the letter "hey" they were created"- the letter "hey" that's also in the name "Yeshu haNotsri"

:yo:

It is about Nathanael who had asked (v.46): “Can anything from Nazareth be good?"

Strange is that the name Nathanael doesn't occur elsewhere in NT.

[duxrow]

Sylvie, "Trees of Righteousness", Isa61:3, makes me think of Jesus THE WORD, who became flesh, instead of b&w.. hah. Most challenging and wonderful book ever written!

My 2nd choice would be 1K4:25 "And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon".

Nathanael, only from John 1 and John 21, isn't listed as an apostle, but was apparently on the scene all the time, even from when they "found" Jesus to begin with. When he said (essentially) "My Lord and my God", it spoke to the contrast between him and Thomas -- and makes us aware of how some people 'believe' on the basis of very little evidence (it seems), while others, like Thomas, aren't going to take someone elses word concerning a matter of such great importance. Amen?

[sylvius]

“Can anything from Nazareth be good?"


Greek: Ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ δύναταί τι ἀγαθὸν εἶναι;

ἀγαθός stands for Hebrew "tov" (of which we saw that the third time that it appears in the Hebrew bible it is the 153rd word from the begiining
Just that LXX uses here "kalos", καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν

The tree of knowledge of good and evil in LXX is: τὸ ξύλον τοῦ εἰδέναι γνωστὸν καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ

Both "kalos" and "agathos" are used in NT, also John uses both words.
What's the difference?

http://www.bibleteachingprogram.com/btp/message/greekwords/greekweb/gr4a.html

[dpenn]

It would prove my point that everything turns around the name of God present in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamyim" -- name that is not there when the letter "hey" of "hashishi" is missing, since the name written on the cross is not "yeshu notsri" but "yeshu hanotsri", with an extra letter "hey".


John 19:19-20,

ἔγραψεν δὲ καὶ τίτλον ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ: ἦν δὲ γεγραμμένον, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον πολλοὶ ἀνέγνωσαν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς: καὶ ἦν γεγραμμένον Ἑβραϊστί, Ῥωμαϊστί, Ἑλληνιστί.


Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, “Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews.� Many of the Jews read this inscription, for sthe place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.




Latin doesn't know defintie articles.

In Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum, abbreviated to ( the well-known) INRI

So in short: "The beast" is the Jesus of Christianity.

sylvius

After you said,

It would prove my point that everything turns around the name of God present in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamyim" --

and then,

...the name written on the cross is not "yeshu notsri" but "yeshu hanotsri"


How do you come up with,

So in short: "The beast" is the Jesus of Christianity?

Could you also elaborate on "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamyim"?

dp

[sylvius]

sylvius

After you said,

It would prove my point that everything turns around the name of God present in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamyim" --

and then,

...the name written on the cross is not "yeshu notsri" but "yeshu hanotsri"


How do you come up with,

So in short: "The beast" is the Jesus of Christianity?

Could you also elaborate on "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamyim"?

dp


Christianity sticks to "Jesus of Nazareth", as an historical figure.

The name of God doesn't occur in the first story of creation, except for hidden inthe initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim", the last two words of Genesis 1:31 and the first two words of Genesis 2:1, exactly at the completion of creation.

[dpenn]

sylvius,

Thanks for a partial answer, as to the association with Gen 1:31; 2:1,


Christianity sticks to "Jesus of Nazareth", as an historical figure.

The name of God doesn't occur in the first story of creation, except for hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim", the last two words of Genesis 1:31 and the first two words of Genesis 2:1, exactly at the completion of creation.

but you said earlier,


I heard from an Italian Jewish kabbalist "Jesus is the beast" because the gematria of "Yeshu Notsri" is 666 (10+300+6+50+90+200+10), written with seven letters (seven heads) ("yud-shin-vav-nun-tzade-resh-yud") with ten horns ("shin"- three horns - "tzade" two horns - the other 5 letters each one horn).

And you seemed to disprove this by saying there was an extra hey preceding Notsri. Thus, his gematria 666 was wrong, including the seven heads and ten horns. But then surprisingly, you later said,


So in short: "The beast" is the Jesus of Christianity

This seems to contradict your response to the Italian Jewish kabbalist, but also goes much beyond:

"Christianity sticks to "Jesus of Nazareth", as an historical figure.".

dp

[sylvius]

sylvius,

Thanks for a partial answer, as to the association with Gen 1:31; 2:1,



but you said earlier,



And you seemed to disprove this by saying there was an extra hey preceding Notsri. Thus, his gematria 666 was wrong, including the seven heads and ten horns. But then surprisingly, you later said,



This seems to contradict your response to the Italian Jewish kabbalist, but also goes much beyond:

"Christianity sticks to "Jesus of Nazareth", as an historical figure.".

dp


Christianity has no notion of the "extra" letter "hey", that is in "hashishi" (the sixth) and also in the name Abraham, and also in "hanotsri" (the Nazarene), as already implied by the Latin abbrevaition INRI.

See translations of John 19:19,
http://biblehub.com/john/19-19.htm

most have: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

Although Matthew 2:23 states:
καὶ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς πόλιν λεγομένην Ναζαρέτ, ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται.
And most have: "He will be called a Nazarene."
http://biblehub.com/matthew/2-23.htm


I think Paul hints at the same in Romans 1:23, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.



They do venerate the image of a corpse hanging on a cross .

http://bernardus-media.gloria.tv/l3/mediafile-424675-1.jpg?upstream=justina-media.gloria.tv%2fg&sum=Cp7gqMDobNC6AcdJO1yo7A&due=1409910577

[dpenn]

Christianity has no notion of the "extra" letter "hey", that is in "hashishi" (the sixth) and also in the name Abraham, and also in "hanotsri" (the Nazarene), as already implied by the Latin abbrevaition INRI.

See translations of John 19:19,
http://biblehub.com/john/19-19.htm

most have: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

Although Matthew 2:23 states:
καὶ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς πόλιν λεγομένην Ναζαρέτ, ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται.
And most have: "He will be called a Nazarene."
http://biblehub.com/matthew/2-23.htm


I think Paul hints at the same in Romans 1:23, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.



They do venerate the image of a corpse hanging on a cross .

http://bernardus-media.gloria.tv/l3/mediafile-424675-1.jpg?upstream=justina-media.gloria.tv%2fg&sum=Cp7gqMDobNC6AcdJO1yo7A&due=1409910577

sylvius,

Maybe you can make that claim against the Roman Catholic Church, as are the only ones that venerate a dead corpse on their cross. But there has never been a time that historic biblical Christianity has venerated a dead corpse on a cross. Also, the NT was written originally in Greek, not Latin, so the INRI is not a common representation for most Bible believing Protestant Christians. Maybe the Latin Vulgate has paved the way, but almost all sound interpretations of the Bible today, consider the Vulgate a very inferior translation.

I am also a little surprised that the Italian Jewish kabbalist you referred to earlier was obsessed with applying beast imagery to Jesus from Revelation 13 (666, 7 heads, 10 horns), not the OT. This same 4th beast prophecy taken from Daniel 2 and 7, speaks of the Roman Empire, following the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Grecian Empires. After all, Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks to the Messiah in chapter 9, says that after 69 weeks of years, the Messiah would be cut off, and the people of the prince that would come, would destroy the city and the sanctuary. So it would appear that the 4th beast imagery should be applied to the Roman Empire, who in fulfillment of prophecy, did cut off the Messiah, Jesus Christ, before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.

I am sure you know the passage very well, Dan 9:24-27:

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

But what still puzzles me Sylvius, is that you said yourself earlier,


"the name written on the cross is not "yeshu notsri" but "yeshu hanotsri", with an extra letter "hey".

along with,


"John 19:19-20,

ἔγραψεν δὲ καὶ τίτλον ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ: ἦν δὲ γεγραμμένον, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον πολλοὶ ἀνέγνωσαν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς: καὶ ἦν γεγραμμένον Ἑβραϊστί, Ῥωμαϊστί, Ἑλληνιστί.

Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, “Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews.� Many of the Jews read this inscription, for sthe place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek."

You then suddenly jump to supporting the kabbalist "yeshu notsri" phrase, from:


"Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum, abbreviated to ( the well-known) INRI

So in short: "The beast" is the Jesus of Christianity."

But the Bible was originally written in Greek (which has a definite article), not in Latin (which, as you say, doesn't have a definite article).

Firstly, Could you please state more clearly how the beast is Jesus of Christianity? What you seem to give with one hand, you take with the other. I just can't follow your logic. It may be the problem is entirely in my understanding what you are saying, but I honestly cannot follow your argument.

Secondly, Why would so much emphasis be placed on the kabbalistic interpretation of the NT, from a Jewish kabbalist, when there is a much more Scripturally accepted text in Daniel 9:24-27? Especially since this is one of the best OT passages that not only speaks of the coming Messiah, but places Him in the time frame of Jesus of Nazareth.

dp

[sylvius]

Maybe you can make that claim against the Roman Catholic Church, as are the only ones that venerate a dead corpse on their cross. But there has never been a time that historic biblical Christianity has venerated a dead corpse on a cross. Also, the NT was written originally in Greek, not Latin, so the INRI is not a common representation for most Bible believing Protestant Christians. Maybe the Latin Vulgate has paved the way, but almost all sound interpretations of the Bible today, consider the Vulgate a very inferior translation.



John 19:20 :

τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον πολλοὶ ἀνέγνωσαν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς: καὶ ἦν γεγραμμένον Ἑβραϊστί, Ῥωμαϊστί, Ἑλληνιστί.[/I]

Ῥωμαϊστί = in the Latin language

Latin doesn't know definite articles, so I suspect John to have deliberately written it this way, the more he "knows" the numbers 153 (John 21:11) and 666 (Revelation 13:18)


ἀνέγνωσαν
from ἀναγινώσκω =
1) to distinguish between, to recognise, to know accurately, to acknowledge 2) to read

it is a composition of ἀνά = into [the midst], in [the midst], amidst, among, between.

and γινώσκω = 1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel 1a) to become known 2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of 2a) to understand 2b) to know 3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman 4) to become acquainted with, to know


γινώσκω occurs frequently in John, first in John 1:10,

ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.
It (the true light) was in the world, and the world did develop through it, and the world didn't know it.

γινώσκω is Hebrew "yadah" , from which "da'at"= knowledge; gematria 474, coniciding the 474 words of the first story of creation, "b'hibaram"(with the letter "hey" they were created), being the 474th (and last) word (Genesis 2:4), which wouldn't have been the case when the earth had brought forth "fruit tree producing fruit" instead of "tree producing fruit" in Genesis 1:12 -- and that's why next it is written: "and God saw that it was good" -- "vayar elohim ki-tov" -- this "tov" being the 153rd word from the beginning.


So many of the Jews (πολλοὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων) did know very well what the title did hint at - They were able to read all three languages), ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως , because the place was near to the city.

Same ἐγγὺς to be found in the so called Olivet Discourse and also in Revelation,
from ἐγγίζω,
1) to bring near, to join one thing to another 2) to draw or come near to, to approach

Gospel in a nutshell: Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (Mark 1:15)


I am also a little surprised that the Italian Jewish kabbalist you referred to earlier was obsessed with applying beast imagery to Jesus from Revelation 13 (666, 7 heads, 10 horns) Because the number 666 occurs in Revelation, not in Daniel.



This same 4th beast prophecy taken from Daniel 2 and 7, speaks of the Roman Empire, following the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Grecian Empires. After all, Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks to the Messiah in chapter 9, Daniel 9:25 mentions "a" Messiah, not "the" Messiah, (it being one of KJV's perversions) hinting at king Cyrus, Isaiah 45:1, So said the Lord to His Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I held, to flatten nations before him, and the loins of kings I will loosen, to open portals before him, and gates shall not be closed.




says that after 69 weeks of years, the Messiah would be cut off, again "a" Messiah = "an anointed one" - probably the high-Priest Onias III.


and the people of the prince that would come, would destroy the city and the sanctuary. The Syrian army of Antiochus IV.





But what still puzzles me Sylvius, ,(...)

Christianity knows him as "Jesus of Nazareth" and not as "Jesus the Nazarene"

cf.
Ναζωραῖος
1) an inhabitant of Nazareth 2) a title given to Jesus in the NT 3) a name given to Christians by the Jews, Ac. 24:5

First meaning is false, since "an inhabitant of Nazareth" is rendered as: ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ (Matthew 21:11; Mark 1:9; John 1:45; Acts 10:38)

[dpenn]

Sylvius, you said,



John 19:20 :

τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον πολλοὶ ἀνέγνωσαν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς: καὶ ἦν γεγραμμένον Ἑβραϊστί, Ῥωμαϊστί, Ἑλληνιστί.[/I]

Ῥωμαϊστί = in the Latin language

Latin doesn't know definite articles, so I suspect John to have deliberately written it this way, the more he "knows" the numbers 153 (John 21:11) and 666 (Revelation 13:18)


The inscription over the Cross of Christ was written in 3 languages, but the original Gospels and Epistles were written in Greek, not Hebrew or Latin. I am thankful that the NT was later translated into these languages.

But you had already written the fuller text in an earlier post:


John 19:19-20,

ἔγραψεν δὲ καὶ τίτλον ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ: ἦν δὲ γεγραμμένον, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον πολλοὶ ἀνέγνωσαν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς: καὶ ἦν γεγραμμένον Ἑβραϊστί, Ῥωμαϊστί, Ἑλληνιστί.


Here, in the Greek, there clearly is a definite article, thus a translated Hebrew hey, not a missing hey from a Latin translation.

I also appreciate your breakdown of 153 of John 21:11, to be the 153rd word, tov, from Genesis 1:12, saying:


γινώσκω is Hebrew "yadah" , from which "da'at"= knowledge; gematria 474, coniciding the 474 words of the first story of creation, "b'hibaram"(with the letter "hey" they were created), being the 474th (and last) word (Genesis 2:4), which wouldn't have been the case when the earth had brought forth "fruit tree producing fruit" instead of "tree producing fruit" in Genesis 1:12 -- and that's why next it is written: "and God saw that it was good" -- "vayar elohim ki-tov" -- this "tov" being the 153rd word from the beginning.


You responded to me,




Because the number 666 occurs in Revelation, not in Daniel.


I am also a little surprised that the Italian Jewish kabbalist you referred to earlier was obsessed with applying beast imagery to Jesus from Revelation 13 (666, 7 heads, 10 horns)




Are you suggesting here that the Greek NT, like the Hebrew OT, were both written by sages that were privy to esoteric kabbala and gematria?

You also responded to me in the following:



Daniel 9:25 mentions "a" Messiah, not "the" Messiah, (it being one of KJV's perversions) hinting at king Cyrus, Isaiah 45:1, So said the Lord to His Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I held, to flatten nations before him, and the loins of kings I will loosen, to open portals before him, and gates shall not be closed.


again "a" Messiah = "an anointed one" - probably the high-Priest Onias III.

The Syrian army of Antiochus IV.



This same 4th beast prophecy taken from Daniel 2 and 7, speaks of the Roman Empire, following the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Grecian Empires. After all, Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks to the Messiah in chapter 9,



But Daniel 8 addresses the beastly actions of the Syrian Antiochus Epiphanes IV, following the break-up of Alexander's Grecian Empire, and the heroism of the Maccabees, and the restoration of Temple worship. Jerusalem and the Temple were never destroyed under Antiuchus, but was destroyed in 70 AD during the early years of the Roman Empire. Thus, Daniel 9 clearly extends out beyond the 3rd beastly Empire of Greece to the most ferocious 4th Roman world Empire. And I think it is obvious that the Messiah spoken of in Daniel 9 is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, King of kings, and Lord of lords, and Saviour of the world. I can't see how you could possibly make this say anything different.

And I find it quite sad when you say,



Christianity knows him as "Jesus of Nazareth" and not as "Jesus the Nazarene"


.. merely to fit the kabbalistic "yeshu notsri" to expose Jesus the Christ as "The Beast" of Daniel. Ironically, if Jesus is to be the Beast of Daniel, He fits into Daniel 2,7,9, but if you refer to the Messiah of Daniel 9, suddenly this has to be referring to:



"a" Messiah = "an anointed one" - probably the high-Priest Onias III.


Of course you embellish your beastly imagery of Jesus with,



Ναζωραῖος
1) an inhabitant of Nazareth 2) a title given to Jesus in the NT 3) a name given to Christians by the Jews, Ac. 24:5

First meaning is false, since "an inhabitant of Nazareth" is rendered as: ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ (Matthew 21:11; Mark 1:9; John 1:45; Acts 10:38)


But it should be obvious that you merely twist the Scriptures to fit your preconceived desire for Jesus to be the Beast of Daniel and Revelation.

I do however, thank you for your open discussion of this subject with me. It helps me to understand what makes others tick, and how to best try and relate to others when they are at odds with me, and even blaspheme the God I serve and worship.

dp

[sylvius]

The inscription over the Cross of Christ was written in 3 languages, but the original Gospels and Epistles were written in Greek, not Hebrew or Latin.

But John hints at the Latin "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum"



Are you suggesting here that the Greek NT, like the Hebrew OT, were both written by sages that were privy to esoteric kabbala and gematria?

cf. Mark 4:11,

“To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables"

Parable of the sower being about the number 666 (gematria of "meah sh'arim" = a hundredfold) hidden in Genesis 1:31.









Jerusalem and the Temple were never destroyed under Antiuchus Yes they were, see book of the Maccabees: http://ebible.org/kjv/1MA01.htm
38 Insomuch that the inhabitants of Jerusalem fled because of them: whereupon the city was made an habitation of strangers, and became strange to those that were born in her; and her own children left her.
39 Her sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness, her feasts were turned into mourning, her sabbaths into reproach her honour into contempt.
40 As had been her glory, so was her dishonour increased, and her excellency was turned into mourning.



Thus, Daniel 9 clearly extends out beyond the 3rd beastly Empire of Greece to the most ferocious 4th Roman world Empire. And I think it is obvious that the Messiah spoken of in Daniel 9 is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, King of kings, and Lord of lords, and Saviour of the world. I can't see how you could possibly make this say anything different. that's the (wicked) Preterist interpretation. Pretererists being worst kind of fundamentalistic Christianity.

Daniel's 70 yearweeks are not to be understood as literal 70 x 7 years; but have to be understood as numerical 70 x 7, like the 7 times Cain had to be avenged and the 70 x 7 times of Lamech (Genesis 4) and the 70 x 7 times of forgiveness for the brother who sins (Matthew 18:22).

The last week split in two, to be left with 3,5 years = 42 months = 1260 days = the time, times and half (Daniel 7:25; 12:7), picked up by the writer of Revelation.


The seven times Cain had to be avenged clearly have to do with the seven-day creation. Cain "missed" that creation was completed already on the sixth day. So the "sign" Cain got can be understood as the mark of the beast.

[dpenn]

Sylvius, you said the following in response to me,





But John hints at the Latin "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum"


The inscription over the Cross of Christ was written in 3 languages, but the original Gospels and Epistles were written in Greek, not Hebrew or Latin.



Isn't that interesting, the Greek, which the NT was written in, uses the definite article explicitly, whereas the Latin, which doesn't even have a definite article, and merely, one of 3 inscriptions over the Cross of Jesus the Christ, hints at it, and you choose the Latin. This is almost as strange as the reverse logic of the JW's when they tried to make their New World Translation explain that John 1:1 couldn't be saying that Jesus Christ was not only human, but divine, because of the indefinite article in Greek. Of course, much to their embarrassment, there is no indefinite article in Greek. I know this is different, but I think you are grasping at this one. But you are walking all over the central core of historic biblical Christianity, as you well know, all on a hint. Could this be another hint of a fulfillment of a phrase in 2 Peter 3:5: "For this they willingly are ignorant.."?

You add to this,



cf. Mark 4:11,

“To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables"

Parable of the sower being about the number 666 (gematria of "meah sh'arim" = a hundredfold) hidden in Genesis 1:31.


But you are obviously taking numbers and cooking them backwards to eventually find something to condemn what you have already determined, eisegesis (reading into the text), not exegesis (reading out of the text). And there are so many different systems of gematria that you can almost make the data say whatever you want it to say. This was also very common in Jesus' day. He constantly had to rebuke the scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees because of their oral interpretation of the Scriptures embedded in their traditions, the same traditions that found their way into much of the Talmud, and daughter kabbalistic derivatives.

Also, trying to make the Maccabbeean era to be the fulfillment of Dan 9:24-27 is really grasping at straws. Chapters 8 and 11 of Daniel address the future Grecian Empire, but Daniel 9:24-27 clearly addresses the 4th Roman Empire prophesied in Daniel 2 and 7. And amazingly, after weeping over Jerusalem (Mt 23:37-39), for how they had, for the most part, rejected Him as Messiah and Lord, Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, all for not knowing the time of their visitation by God (Mt 24:1-2):

Mt 23:37-39,

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

Mt 24:1-2,

"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

And surprisingly, when I spoke that Daniel 9:24-27 as referring to Rome, you said,



that's the (wicked) Preterist interpretation. Pretererists being worst kind of fundamentalistic Christianity.



I agree that the Roman Catholic Church has recently jumped on the preterist band wagon because Protesantism has exposed them on almost every front, of being heretical and anti-Christian in their doctrines and practice, that is, the Vatican, and the hierarchical administrative structure. I don't think the greatest percentage of the RC laity has any idea of these distinctives, many of them being genuine Christians. Within the Protestant churches partial preterism is a very minimal eschatological movement, whereas the full preteristic position is held by mostly heretical sects.

For those that don't understand the distinction, full preterism believes that all of prophecy was fulfilled in the 1st Century AD, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, including, somehow, the return of Jesus Christ. Whereas partial preterism recognises that much of what is often considered to occur in the future, already happened in the 1st Century AD. But they also are orthodox in their doctrine that there will be a literal physical return of the resurrected Jesus Christ, at the end of time, after which the resurrection of all believers, OT and NT. In other words, they believe that much of the evil of the Neronian Roman Empire and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, under the military campaign of Titus, was prophesied in Mat 24 and much of Revelation. But everything after the 1,000 years of Rev 20 and 21 are still to be fulfilled in the future.
And all of the genuine Christian partial preterists, who place a great deal of their eschatological interpretation through a First Century Roman grid, are very cautious of not being drawn into the heretical teachings of Roman Catholicism.

Having said this, the greatest percentage of genuine biblical Protestant Christianity would be anti-preterism of all kinds, full or partial.

You also said,



Daniel's 70 yearweeks are not to be understood as literal 70 x 7 years; but have to be understood as numerical 70 x 7, like the 7 times Cain had to be avenged and the 70 x 7 times of Lamech (Genesis 4) and the 70 x 7 times of forgiveness for the brother who sins (Matthew 18:22).

The last week split in two, to be left with 3,5 years = 42 months = 1260 days = the time, times and half (Daniel 7:25; 12:7), picked up by the writer of Revelation.


The seven times Cain had to be avenged clearly have to do with the seven-day creation. Cain "missed" that creation was completed already on the sixth day. So the "sign" Cain got can be understood as the mark of the beast.

But it is obvious that Daniel is referring to a span of time, not an esoteric number like Cain. That doesn't mean that there is no numeric component to this, i.e. poetical device being used, but the most obvious would be an actual fulfillment of a duration of time.

Once again, thanks for the interaction and dialogue. We are all the better for that,

dp

[Richard Amiel McGough]

that's the (wicked) Preterist interpretation. Pretererists being worst kind of fundamentalistic Christianity.

That's absurd. The preterist interpretation is far and away the best fit to the what the Bible actually says. Jesus plainly stated that the end would come when the temple was destroyed, and that happened in 70 AD.



Daniel's 70 yearweeks are not to be understood as literal 70 x 7 years; but have to be understood as numerical 70 x 7, like the 7 times Cain had to be avenged and the 70 x 7 times of Lamech (Genesis 4) and the 70 x 7 times of forgiveness for the brother who sins (Matthew 18:22).

Says who? You? What makes your opinion authoritative?



The last week split in two, to be left with 3,5 years = 42 months = 1260 days = the time, times and half (Daniel 7:25; 12:7), picked up by the writer of Revelation.

So now you are saying that the week DOES correspond to seven years? That directly contradicts what you just said above.



The seven times Cain had to be avenged clearly have to do with the seven-day creation. Cain "missed" that creation was completed already on the sixth day. So the "sign" Cain got can be understood as the mark of the beast.
Yeah, right. The text says nothing about Cain "missing" the completion of creation on the sixth day. You just made that up (as usual).

[Snakeboy]

Ever looked at the root of " leviathan " ?

[sylvius]

Isn't that interesting, the Greek, which the NT was written in, uses the definite article explicitly, whereas the Latin, which doesn't even have a definite article, and merely, one of 3 inscriptions over the Cross of Jesus the Christ, hints at it, and you choose the Latin. -- I didn't "choose the Latin" -- It is about the Hebrew "yeshu notsri", gematria 666, like of "yom shishi" versus "yeshu hanotsri", gematria 671, like of "yom hashishi" with which the name of God was present in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" (Genesis 1:31-2:1).

(Hebrew Jesus of Nazareth would have been "yeshu min n'tseret" or "n'tseret yeshu"; cf. Genesis 15:2 "dameshek eliezer" = Eliezer of Damascus.)





But you are obviously taking numbers and cooking them backwards to eventually find something to condemn what you have already determined, eisegesis (reading into the text), not exegesis (reading out of the text). And there are so many different systems of gematria that you can almost make the data say whatever you want it to say. This was also very common in Jesus' day. He constantly had to rebuke the scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees because of their oral interpretation of the Scriptures embedded in their traditions, the same traditions that found their way into much of the Talmud, and daughter kabbalistic derivatives. this was about the parable of the sower. Only the seed that fell in teh good earth produced "meah sh'arim" (after Genesis 26:12), gematria 666, something the evil one (Satan) immediately took away.




Also, trying to make the Maccabbeean era to be the fulfillment of Dan 9:24-27 is really grasping at straws. Chapters 8 and 11 of Daniel address the future Grecian Empire, but Daniel 9:24-27 clearly addresses the 4th Roman Empire prophesied in Daniel 2 and 7. Clearly? I think the Preterists do practice "eisegesis" here, to make it fit their agenda.



And amazingly, after weeping over Jerusalem (Mt 23:37-39), for how they had, for the most part, rejected Him as Messiah and Lord, Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, all for not knowing the time of their visitation by God (Mt 24:1-2)

Mt 23:37-39,

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

Mt 24:1-2,

"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

It ere proves that Matthew was written after the year 70.






But it is obvious that Daniel is referring to a span of time, not an esoteric number like Cain. That doesn't mean that there is no numeric component to this, i.e. poetical device being used, but the most obvious would be an actual fulfillment of a duration of time.

Matthew 18:21-22 is clearly after both Genesis 4:24 and Daniel 9:24.

[sylvius]

That's absurd. The preterist interpretation is far and away the best fit to the what the Bible actually says. Jesus plainly stated that the end would come when the temple was destroyed, and that happened in 70 AD.


Says who? You? What makes your opinion authoritative?


So now you are saying that the week DOES correspond to seven years? That directly contradicts what you just said above.


Yeah, right. The text says nothing about Cain "missing" the completion of creation on the sixth day. You just made that up (as usual).


Genesis 4:7 Is it not so that if you mend, it will be forgiven you? If you do not mend, however, at the entrance, sin is crouching, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."



"sin is crouching" - like a wild beast.

On the sixth day God first made the animals and then also man, as "crown of creation" --

When you are overpowered by the beast (= the evil inclination) it is like if creation has not been completed yet.

Rule over = "mashal" -- which means also: "to speak metaphorically; to speak in proverbs or parables".

Matthew 23:29-36 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are tsons of those who murdered the prophets. uFill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to whell? Therefore yI send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and dpersecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between hthe sanctuary and ithe altar. Truly, I say to you, jall these things will come upon this generation.

"this generation" = the generation of the Preterists.

[dpenn]

-- I didn't "choose the Latin" --


Yea, sounds like Aaron, "Really Moses, I just threw these few golden trinkets into the fire, and out popped this golden calf".





Also, trying to make the Maccabbeean era to be the fulfillment of Dan 9:24-27 is really grasping at straws. Chapters 8 and 11 of Daniel address the future Grecian Empire, but Daniel 9:24-27 clearly addresses the 4th Roman Empire prophesied in Daniel 2 and 7.

Clearly? I think the Preterists do practice "eisegesis" here, to make it fit their agenda.


Probably in excess of 90% of all genuine Christians are not preterist of any form, and they almost all agree on this one point, that Daniel 9:24-27 refers to the fourth Beast, Rome.






And amazingly, after weeping over Jerusalem (Mt 23:37-39), for how they had, for the most part, rejected Him as Messiah and Lord, Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, all for not knowing the time of their visitation by God (Mt 24:1-2)

Mt 23:37-39,

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

Mt 24:1-2,

"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

It ere proves that Matthew was written after the year 70.


This is amazing, Daniel prophesies the coming of the Messiah under the Roman occupation, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in that time-frame, and Jesus prophesies the very same thing, shortly before His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, and your conclusion ... this proves Matthew was written after the year 70. What about all of the early church fathers that wrote volumes and volumes about this time frame? Could they convince everyone to go along with the hoax?

dp