Spirit or Superstition?

[sojourner]

Actually, I was mocking someone who gave a detailed description of what I was doing wrong, but didn't recognize that she was doing it herself......I understand that much, but the whole gematria thing is meaningless to those who see no hidden code, nor a need for one. The Bible stands alone as the word of God...rock solid and dependable.....available to all...not just a few who have the key to this sacred and mysterious knowledge.

I agree with your last statement. However, it could be that there is some mathematical "code" that provides an alternate layer of interpretation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

First of all, I'd like to reiterate that although there is a treasure trove of gematria in the Bible, not all books of the Bible have it. In every line of Genesis 1-2 there is gematria, and the scribal motivation there was to link each step of creation with a letter corresponding to a path or a palace of the Seven Palaces, which was a map of the cosmos as ancient Israelites and Canaanites saw it. In that specific case, I believe the gematria is of a sober character composed as a reverence to YHVH Elohim, and yes, the scribes worked incredibly hard at it. They genuinely believed that the heavens and the earth was brought into being with the agency of the letters according to the conformations of the Seven Palaces.

Not all gematria is so high minded however. For instance, Ezekiel goes out of his way to pull the whiskers of the King of Tyre, basically sending him the message - 'don't get above yourself King, you're not the only one that knows the secrets of the Merkabah.' These scribes weren't hiding messages in the bible for the likes of us. They expected their gematria to be decoded by their peers and contemporaries, and its probable that a rather good composition would receive praise and admiration. To clarify, I'm not suggesting social validation is the main reason these men were composing gematria, but at the same time I think it helped to keep the art and practice alive in their communities. Everyone likes a bit of a pat on the back when they've worked hard and well, and that's just a natural part of social dynamics.

It is because these scribes expected their texts to be understood by their peers, that they weren't overly concerned about misleading anyone with accounts of fiery horses or burning bushes. In any case, if a non-Jewish foreigner was to read them I expect they would have said that goyim had no business reading their material anyway, and they wouldn't have been concerned if he did read it and got the wrong idea.

Although the Song of Solomon isn't composed with gematria, it is a wonderful work that is full of allegory. The Torah is likened to a bride, and the scribe writes; "Your lips, my bride, drip sweetness like the honeycomb; honey and milk are under your tongue" which the Rabbis interpret as meaning that the Torah and all it's clothing (the secrets of the Merkabah & the account of creation) is for them, not for outsiders who are not taught the 'Sod' (the secret means of Exegesis).

You write as though it is universally accepted that the Merkabah and Seven Palaces are "it". All 66 books have gematria.

You wrote "if a non-Jewish foreigner was to read them I expect they would have said that goyim had no business reading their material anyway" so why do you think Jesus reproved the Pharisees for crossing oceans to make proselytes? Why was their a packed Court of Gentiles in worship when Jesus was at the Temple?

SOS has allegory, sure, it has a lot of allegory about the Christ!

Feel free to have the last word here, as I'm sure the INCREDIBLE gematria of the Bible presses its face value agenda, strongly. And of course, the text is the most influential in all history and so logically cannot be allegory only.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

Happily, the texts are multivalent and layered with meaning, so it’s really a both/and proposition. There’s content for waders, content for swimmers, content for divers, content for drinkers, content for bathers.

Indeed, and the sages say as much. There is the tradition of Jewish exegesis called the PaRDeS (Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod), for the plain meaning, the allegorical, the comparative and the secret. My chief area of interest is the Sod of the Tanakh, but there is certainly much value in the other three, and no-doubt the NT has similar levels of valid exegesis.

Although I've delved into the New Testament, most of my studies are focused on the pre-exilic period, and there's quite enough there for one woman to investigate. I hope that someone with a better grasp of Greek and more motivation will do a proper survey of the state of things with the NT Isopsephy.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

How did anyone get a belief in God, is a valid question, I believe?

Sure. There is another thread on this forum by SalixIncendium, 'Faith in God' which is discussing that.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

It was a literary analysis...here are the snippets from my post on another, discontinued forum...

Another poster (5555) from that forum pointed out that there were three famines...

I also noted that at least in the method of breaking up Genesis we now have this as Chapter 26 which is right near the midpoint of Genesis at 50 Chapters.

This was the only Chapter of Genesis I noted this sort of "musical rhythm" out of the first 38 chapters that I looked at closely.

That is very interesting. There are also three periods of time that delineate the building of the First Temple in 1 Kings. I suggest that you may be able to deepen your analysis if you look into the gematria of the text. I have coded a helpful tool to help people like you do that. If you use the Book Search function on Shematria, you'll find every word of the text is presented with gematria and in an interlinear format, so you'll just have to concentrate on working out what the math notation is.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What history besides the bible confirms jesus was real?

About the only extra-biblical source, that can be trusted, is Tacitus.

The evidence from Josephus can probably be ignored... it's doubtful a Jew, like Josephus, would write such God-like praise of someone the Jews despised! He would've been an outcast!

If you think about it....would any credible historian, worried about his reputation, write about a miracle-performer?

No! They would laugh it off! They wouldn't even bother searching!

And Jesus didn't hang out with influential people, whose lives were recorded. He spent time w/ the commoners.

Something else to consider: who does the Bible say, controls this world? God's enemy! (1 John 5:19) According to the Bible, his influence has been extensive! (Revelation 12:9) "The entire inhabited Earth" would include everyone, to some degree or another!

It would be fantastic if archeologists found preserved manuscripts from the Library of Alexandria, or Pergamum, or from another such ancient library, that had survived. I doubt any still exist.... of course, much knowledge was lost w/ these establishments' destruction.

I long, one day, to find out the truth about everything. -- Psalms 37:4. See 1 John 3:8; Hebrews 2:14.

 

[Sand Dancer]

No. You demonstrate that you do not know,
We are not using the Bible here. History confirms the man Jesus was a real person.
Since you don't know that, it would be beneficial to get the knowledge.
After all, standing and beating ones chest does nothing to show anything.

How does it confirm him when he's not listed in any history books? He may have existed, but most likely he was an amalgam of different wandering teacher/healers of the day. They were common back then.

 

[JJ50]

Jesus is not mentioned anywhere but the Bible, which is a novel but not a historical one.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

@Hockeycowboy, Thirza Fallen, JJ50 and others

I suppose this proves the point. Although there is very little in the way of proof that Jesus existed outside the Bible, people are still willing to believe in him and in God. I think, from the answers in this thread, that even if all the miracles of Jesus were demonstrated to be Isopsephy and people accepted that, they would still believe Jesus was a highly spiritually advanced man with a strong moral compass and a direct line to God, and would be just fine with it.

Do you think a Jesus (sans miracles) might be more relatable?

 

[sojourner]

@Hockeycowboy, Thirza Fallen, JJ50 and others

I suppose this proves the point. Although there is very little in the way of proof that Jesus existed outside the Bible, people are still willing to believe in him and in God. I think, from the answers in this thread, that even if all the miracles of Jesus were demonstrated to be Isopsephy and people accepted that, they would still believe Jesus was a highly spiritually advanced man with a strong moral compass and a direct line to God, and would be just fine with it.

Do you think a Jesus (sans miracles) might be more relatable?

Jesus, sans miracles, is the historical Jesus vs. the mythic Jesus.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

Jesus, sans miracles, is the historical Jesus vs. the mythic Jesus.

But to be historical Jesus wouldn't there have to be some type of source outside the Bible? Therefore wouldn't a Jesus sans miracles still be a mythic Jesus?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

May I ask, what kind of analysis you are doing with Gen 26? I know someone who is counting letters* as part of a reconstruction of scribal techniques. I find that interesting though it's not my area of expertise..............................

In Scripture I find nothing about counting letters except that translators would count the number of letters on a page to make sure no letters were overlooked when copying or translating.

Before I started to study the Bible ( by subject arrangement ) I was curious about numerology.
So, I decided to apply what I was learning to the Catholic mass.
What I found at that time was that the mass was broken down into three parts, and each of those three parts were broken down into three parts, then those three parts were also broken down into three parts.......
That was enough for me to loose interest in numerology.

 

[sojourner]

But to be historical Jesus wouldn't there have to be some type of source outside the Bible? Therefore wouldn't a Jesus sans miracles still be a mythic Jesus?

There are some limited extra-biblical sources. But, no. In a culture that was largely oral, it’s amazing there’s written literature about him at all.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In order to have a thought, or hold any type of idea in your head at all, it requires a duality. A mystic is someone who unites those dualities in order to get beyond the ego into a realm of formless awareness. That's why "AND" is the major tool in the toolbox of the mystic. But the ego that doesn't understand its own place in the psyche is afraid that it is not one. So the mystic has to develop an awareness of their own egoic defense mechanisms. It makes the ego feel good to speak for God, but its tries to hide its motivations for it behind self-serving justifications. On one level you were aware of what you were doing, but you didn't expect anyone to be so rude as to call you on it. Sorry. I believe in tough love sometimes.

I am wondering if you think of the words found at 1 Corinthians 13:4-6 as being tough love __________

As far as ' ego ' is concerned, we are to think of others as superior as per Philippians 2:2-3; Romans 12:10.
After all, others are superior to each one in some way or fashion.

As far as self-serving justifications:
Sometimes we may find it is Not easy to decide whether we will help others or concentrate on oneself.
Thus, inside of us there is this on-going conflict, or balancing act, to maintain interest in others.
This is where Scripture sheds light on the subject when we read of compassion shown to others.
Jesus' illustration about the neighborly good Samaritan for example.
We are all to widen out, or broaden out in showing practical love even to a stranger in time of need.
Plus, we can consider how we can imitate Christ-like love, and how imitating such love is beneficial__________
- 1 Corinthians 13:4-6.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But to be historical Jesus wouldn't there have to be some type of source outside the Bible? Therefore wouldn't a Jesus sans miracles still be a mythic Jesus?

Jesus has been mentioned by some historians.
ALL of Jesus' miracles or works dealt with real problems as we still have today.
Jesus' powerful works (and the apostles) helped to get 1st century Christianity off to a flying start, so to speak.
Jesus was giving us a sample preview, or a coming attraction, of what will take place on a grand global scale.
Also, since most people want peace on earth then it would seem logical there would be more peace on earth.
To me, only the Bible gives a satisfying answer as to why there is so much suffering and what can be done about it.

 

[nPeace]

How does it confirm him when he's not listed in any history books? He may have existed, but most likely he was an amalgam of different wandering teacher/healers of the day. They were common back then.

Okay, thank you.
So there is evidence he existed. You or I don't have to accept it.
Whether we do or not, does not make that evidence go away.
Do you agree?

 

[nPeace]

Jesus is not mentioned anywhere but the Bible, which is a novel but not a historical one.

That's not true. See here.
Also, the Qur'an is not the Bible.
Others...
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible? | Cold Case Christianity

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain, although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

In Scripture I find nothing about counting letters except that translators would count the number of letters on a page to make sure no letters were overlooked when copying or translating.

Its work by Samuel Zinner: Chapter 11 of Recovering Ancient Hebrew Scribal Numerical and Acrostic Techniques

Before I started to study the Bible ( by subject arrangement ) I was curious about numerology.
So, I decided to apply what I was learning to the Catholic mass.
What I found at that time was that the mass was broken down into three parts, and each of those three parts were broken down into three parts, then those three parts were also broken down into three parts.......
That was enough for me to loose interest in numerology.

I've never been interested in numerology. People keep saying numerology like it had something to do with this thread. I think they are confused over terminology. The difference between biblical gematria and numerology is like the difference between astronomy and astrology. Astronomers and astrologers both the study the stars, but otherwise they are completely different. Gematria and Numerology both use Numbers but otherwise they are completely different. Now imagine walking up to an astronomer and saying "Sun signs? I've never been interested in that stuff..." When people start talking about Numerology to me I just think "Oh God, not another one."

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Its work by Samuel Zinner: Chapter 11 of Recovering Ancient Hebrew Scribal Numerical and Acrostic Techniques
I've never been interested in numerology. People keep saying numerology like it had something to do with this thread. I think they are confused over terminology. The difference between biblical gematria and numerology is like the difference between astronomy and astrology. Astronomers and astrologers both the study the stars, but otherwise they are completely different. Gematria and Numerology both use Numbers but otherwise they are completely different. Now imagine walking up to an astronomer and saying "Sun signs? I've never been interested in that stuff..." When people start talking about Numerology to me I just think "Oh God, not another one."

Thank you for your reply.
When people would ask me what is your sign I simply said, " Danger High Voltage " !

 

[nPeace]

@Thirza Fallen @JJ50
Isn't it interesting that when archaeologists dig in the earth and find writing on clay, and other materials, which mention persons and their activities, people are quick to say, "Hey there was this man named So-and-so, that did XYZ", and no one ever questions whether the man really existed, or if what was written was true?

Yet, we dig in the same earth, and find ancient tattered material, written on, and we question the existence of the characters, and events, and deny that what was written was true.

That's interesting.
What's the difference between this

, and this,

It seems clear, that this is nothing more than disbelief, and denial - believing what one want to, and denying and criticizing what one does not believe.
To me, whether archaeologist dig up the barrel which was filled with water, that turned to wine, or find the footprints on the water, where Jesus walked, makes no difference to the Christian. The Bible is history written down. We need no other source to confirm it, although that will happen - as in the case of all the evidence found to confirm its reliability - the writings themselves give solid confirmation.

For example, we know that the Hebrew writings are quite ancient, and we know that Paul's writings, as well as the Gospels, are ancient as well, though more recent than the Hebrew.
What we see written in the Hebrew, is confirmed by the Greek. Much of what is written are actual fulfillment of earlier writings - too much to go into here.
However, this is all the confirmation we need, as well as the fact that it is established by the lives of actual people living from the first century AD, to today.

So those who are asking for outside evidence are really not being reasonable, because when outside evidence confirms a score of characters, and events, they will ask for confirmation of others. When they get two score, they will ask for confirmation of more. They will never be satisfied.
Yet, ironically, they are satisfied with a coffin full of fossils to pick at, and claim that evolution happened.
When asked where are the hundred of thousands we expect to find... "Oh, the fossil record is incomplete. Oh, we won't be able to find many of the fossils, because..."

People believe what they want.