i need help with this math problem

[kenisyes]

Greek has numbers for its vowels. There is nothing to look for if you have a number to decode; the vowels are part of the code. Hebrew does not. Hebrew only goes to 400, so you need more than 3 letters to get 666, or 616, and then you look for the vowels. (In the Kabbalistic periods, the final letters were numbered to go to 900) If you are studying Hebrew words in Greek, realize Hebrew has 4 written H's, Greek has none. Hebrew has 2 written T's and 2 S's, Greek has only one of each. That allows for various re-spellings. All of this affects Spritural numerological thinking.

I noted that in 30 aeons broken into 18:12, the proportion is 3:2 when divided by the perfect number 6. 3:2 is the structure of Plato's universe. It is also the harmonic numbers sounded by the shofar in the traditional trumpet calls. The notes are called in Hebrew gift (3) and rest (2) and symbolize the earth and heaven in our recurrent journey. Paul would have known all this. And note IJohn 5:7-8, 3 heavenly witnesses (Father Son Spirit) and 3 earthly witnesses, but only 2, since Spirit is repeated. The same pattern 3:2 is the pattern of Plato, the Hebrew trumpet based musical system, and John's verse. All these old ideas would have been known to Paul. If we take the new idea that 18 is Jesus, 12 the 12 tribes or apostles, the journey and the fundamental relationships of heaven/earth, being 3:2 become the statement Jesus (as named iE, the part of His name that comes from Yahweh) is the heavenly cause, and earth is the structure established by His Cross, either as the church the new Israel, or as the church founded on the 12 apostles. Paul speaks of saying nothing beyond "Christ (18) and Him crucified (300)" and thus creates Christian family (318). Could he have failed to notice this, and failed to have mentioned it to his companions, though not for teaching to others.

 

[iamsoandso]

"if you are studding Hebrew words written in Greek",,,,no i do realize it will not work correctly. irenaeus stated in ah 5.30.1 1. Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of "Greek mode of calculation" so Hebrew wont work i understand,,,,,,at the end of ah 5.29 he states "600 because Noah was 600" 60 and six and points to the image Nebuchadnezzar made 600 is in Hebrew,but as he states we must use Greek. then in these chapters of Daniel were Aramaic but again we must use the Greek mode of calculation. so i think why the language jump? many times they state the man of sin will rise from "dan" so scattered from the Assyrian dispersion? they were carried to Persia. then in a.d.70 they were scattered again to all parts of the roman world. now from ad70 to 1948 there was no "Israel" as a country/state. so the prophecies concerning Israel,man of sin ect. could not be fulfilled until Israel was set back up as a state.after 1948 they jewish tribes then returned(that could proove they were Jewish) so some came from iraq,and they spell their name in arabic(not greek),some from america and spell their name in English(not Greek),some in German ect.,,,,,,,but this man, a jew from the tribe of Dan,carried into exile,returns and his name is written in greek. there is no temple yet built but when it is,he being a Jew,then also a priest? will be permitted to go into the temple.well any how if he is in Israel (right now) and he has a Hebrew name then we need to translate it to Greek for it to fit "the Greek mode of calculation" we cant add to or take away from the scripture,,but this man is a Jew with a Greek name. so im really just looking in this story of the 318 for something that fits that path.

 

[kenisyes]

I offered my comment for general knowledge. But let me split a hair here. Iranaeus offers the testimony of those who knew John personally, for the number itself, 666. For the idea of adding it up in Greek, he offers only "reason" as his witness. This is an important distinction to me. People who knew John say it is 666, not 616. But Iranaeus offers only his own common sense that we should add in Greek. That is why I don't think we should get rid of Hebrew considerations that quickly.

It is very difficult to know when a word from Greek or Hebrew should be interpreted with a capital or small letter. A great deal was lost in the fourth century, when the Catholic Church codified everything. The Reformation has been slowly putting the original understanding back, but is a monumental effort. Like apostle could be the technical term (one of the 12 or Paul), or it could be the common term, an emissary sent by God to do something. Dan is the same way. It is a tribe in Israel, and thus a region of Israel where they were assigned to live. But as a word, it means "judge". One could also argue that arising from dan simply means the man started out as a judge, or was appointed one in due course.

There is also a fine point in the text itself. The text does not say "it is the number of A man", or the number of THE man". In Greek it reads "it is the number of man". Now, Greek has the word "the", but no word for "a". But still, in Greek one would expect at least an autou following anthropou, if it meant what we are thinking.

So many options, and so many ways to split the hairs!

 

[iamsoandso]

I do have a high respect of your opinion,im glad you give it on these matters and am never offended with your opinion. i was having a very difficult time interpreting papyrus 115. irenaeus, and polycarp i feel are also the most accurate source poycarp's letter to the phillipians really gives nothing to help in this matter. but we also know that irenaeus learned from him the things he was saying in against heretics. i feel very comfortable as you point out trusting the connection from irenaeus back to john.,,,,,now as for the others clement,oragin,ect. i really just showed the quotes from them because they discussed the "iota,eta",,but it really made no sense to me where they were going with it. barnabas seems to be the oldest of them(if its the apostle),,cant remember which one but in one of hippoylus books he list names of the 70 disciples he gives the name barnabas twice so there were at least 3 men at the time named "barnabas" did he write it?i searched across the years trying to determine and found proof both ways,so im afraid to say yes or no(but another thread i suppose,for barnabas)
the Hebrew im still open minded on also. and like you point out of the Greek ive wondered for years about the same he could be saying "here's the wise thing to do let he that hath understanding(holy spirit) count(number him with them) when he says his name. that is maybe the angel is telling us us "to leave it alone",,,why i say that is the wording from irenaeus "chose not to re-veil it at this time,,,it was not yet spoken,for if it was spoken at that time he would he would continue for a very long time",,,so he cannot be born or rise till the holy spirit "says his name". in the first post i said "beast 1,beast 2,best 3,,,,how do we know he's not meaning "numbered among the others,the last head"??,,,maybe not tho

 

[kenisyes]

There were two Simon's in the 12, so I think it likely there were two Barnabas' in the 70. The Barnabas of acts is probably a third one, as nothing is mentioned of the previous connection, and Luke was very thorough. He is first presented as a levite, later as an apostle. It makes no sense that Luke would not mention the connection at this time, since all of the 70 could be called "apostles", since Jesus "sent them", but were never so called, even by Luke. The Didache supports the other possibility, that Barnabas became an apostle as a result of what he did with Paul.

I think the 666 has a different key than what we are looking for. I am e-mailing you my solution privately, as part of it was forbidden to be preached by the rabbis among younger people, since it caused too much confusion.

 

[iamsoandso]

There were two Simon's in the 12, so I think it likely there were two Barnabas' in the 70. The Barnabas of acts is probably a third one, as nothing is mentioned of the previous connection, and Luke was very thorough. He is first presented as a levite, later as an apostle. It makes no sense that Luke would not mention the connection at this time, since all of the 70 could be called "apostles", since Jesus "sent them", but were never so called, even by Luke. The Didache supports the other possibility, that Barnabas became an apostle as a result of what he did with Paul.

I think the 666 has a different key than what we are looking for. I am e-mailing you my solution privately, as part of it was forbidden to be preached by the rabbis among younger people, since it caused too much confusion.

yes 3 men named barnabas 2 of the 70 Luke does mention the third, i think they missed that point that is in the book of acts(written by luke) the 11 were present and the 12 was appointed by lot of those who were present and witneses from the beggining of christ minestry to the ascension to heaven.,,,but notice the 70 were sent out and did not have eye witness to all,,,only the one barnabas(the apostle)

 

[kenisyes]

Where was Barnabas an eye-witness? The first time his name appears is in Acts 4:36, where he is stated to be a Levite from Cyprus, sounds like a convert.

 

[iamsoandso]

in hippolitus,,, CHURCH FATHERS: On the Apostles and Disciples (Pseudo-Hippolytus) there are 13 apostles,, in the list of 70 disciples some of the 12 are numbered along with the 70.,,,,Luke states in luke 1;1-4 there are "many who have set forth" then he states "beginning were eyewitnesses",,then he having "perfect understanding",then addresses his epistle to theophilus,,,so Luke himself is not an eyewitness to all of the accounts,but has "perfect understanding of it",(how i was shown),,roll up the Gospel of john,,and acts 1;1,,the second part of the epistle addressed to again to theophilus.,,,,then jump forward to acts chapter 16,,,,as it is written Luke changes person from "they,them",,,,to "we,us" this is the point where Luke is no longer quoting "eyewitness accounts" and is then giving accounts "first person",,while traveling with Paul.,,,,then he again changes to "they,them" again.,,,,second person,,,then first person"eyewitness",,,then back to second person.,,,,there are 3 letters in Luke,acts and the letter written by the apostles at Jerusalem,,,and in acts 14;14,,,,and in 1 Corinthians 9;1-6,,,,,,,Barnabas was not an eyewitness numbered among the 12,,,13 is paul,but what do they say of the one they miss?,,,look back close at what barnabas says about Paul when he defends him to the apostles at Jerusalem,,,he a levite he says "went to damascus and returned to Jerusalem with Saul,,,,apostle,it means?,,could refer to the 70 also,,,there were 12,,,and another Paul,,and Luke and Paul point to one more endorsed by the 12...

 

[iamsoandso]

theres a link in post 208

 

[kenisyes]

There are three Barnabas's in this text, bishops of Milan (#13), Heraclea (#24), and Appolonia, the cousin of another Mark (#56). Surely, he would have mentioned if any of them were the companion of Paul.

Barnabus, defending Paul is Acts 9:27. He evidently met Paul as Paul was preaching Jesus in Damascus.

I see two other things worthy of private note. Wolfinoxhide and I spent several days a few weeks ago, determining from astronomy that Jesus died in 27 AD. There is independent confirmation here, since Paul was martyred in 63 AD. 63-35=28 and this is one year after Jesus died.

Pseudo-Hippolytis makes three interesting omissions, showing that he is Latin/Greek, as opposed to Jewish. He ignores Paul's time in Damascus arguing with the Jews; this would have been considered advanced training for Paul, as it is where Paul formulated his theology from a Jewish perspective. He also omits that Mark and Luke were the interpreters of Peter and Paul respectively. This is a Jewish office of rabbi apprenticeship, and it is part of what qualifies their accounts of the gospel to be included in Scripture, as opposed to others of the "many who have set down" as you quote. Notice, almost everyone of the 70 became a bishop somewhere.

He also has the first confirmation I have seen in early print that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew tongue.

I'm sure Eusebius drew heavily on pseudo-Hyppolitus for his histories of the 12, but I notice a few differences. I was taught John was the oldest apostle, and died at age 104, and that all were martyred except John. I trust this more, since it was written right around 200 AD; there would probably still have been someone alive who knew John and/or Simon the Zealot as a youth.

The story of the bishops of Jerusalem is a little confusing: James (#1 of the 70) the Lord's brother curiously counted twice (#4 as apostle), Simon the Zealot, after James (#11) died at age 120 (must have been 130AD, give or take). Where does this leave Cleopas (#11)? Surely, he did not live long enough to come after Simon? Or were there two at once, or does "after James" not mean "immediately after James"?

This really makes the upper room experience come alive. It sounds so much like when we start out in a church when we are young, and there are 120 people, and we follow them until we are old, and then we write the stories. then later a new generation repeats them. And it makes the condemnation of heretics sound so much like the discrepancies we find in the arguments in the CC threads. "It's something new, I don't like it, and I learned this from so-and-so who learned it from someone who was in the upper room."

 

[iamsoandso]

here are the three "epistles" first is the book of "gosphul according to Luke",,addressed to theophilus luke 1;3,,,,then the second written by Luke again and addressed to theophilus,,,here is the third in acts 15;23 is the letter written by the apostles it begins at the semicolon in verse 23,,,,:"the apostles elders and brethren",,,,ect. then continues thru verse 29 and ends with "fare ye well" it seems at first to be not important. Luke seems to quote it in its entirety. but it is the "epistle to the gentiles" written by the 12 apostles to the gentiles at Antioch, Syria and Cilicia.,,,,here is a man named "barnabas",,who is most probably not either of the two hippolitus list in his list of 70 but is most defiantly the third he mentions with mark(of the 70),as (cousin of mark). their is something about this one particular man that is hard to see. in verse 15;12 miracles and wonders god had wrought among the gentiles by"them" they both had the gift of "miracles and wonders" we in the modern day are told there are "12 apostles",,and Paul 13,,,,,,in acts 14;14 "the apostles Barnabas and Paul"and then we have in the epistle of the "apostles to the gentiles" acts 15;23-29 we have the additional 2 named by the 12 apostles themselves. so the 12 given to the circumcision and #13 Barnabas and #14 Paul given commission to the gentiles by the 12.,,,,ill stop here for now.

 

[kenisyes]

I would rather think that the Barnabas of Acts is not one mentioned by psuedo-Hypolitus. Two reasons: First, Pseudo H would have mentioned he was companion to Paul. Second, Barnabas is listed next to Ananias and Sapphira when he first appears, where it is mentioned that his real name is Joses, and the apostles called him Barnabas. Part of my hope that he is not listed by Pseudo H, is that if he is not, he is a proof text that we were taught wrong about what an apostle is (which I believe we were taught wrong from other sources). Certainly, as one of the 70, he would have been in the upper room, and it is unlikely he'd be donating money from the sale of land at this later time.

 

[iamsoandso]

I would rather think that the Barnabas of Acts is not one mentioned by psuedo-Hypolitus. Two reasons: First, Pseudo H would have mentioned he was companion to Paul. Second, Barnabas is listed next to Ananias and Sapphira when he first appears, where it is mentioned that his real name is Joses, and the apostles called him Barnabas. Part of my hope that he is not listed by Pseudo H, is that if he is not, he is a proof text that we were taught wrong about what an apostle is (which I believe we were taught wrong from other sources). Certainly, as one of the 70, he would have been in the upper room, and it is unlikely he'd be donating money from the sale of land at this later time.

,,,,yes this barnabas clearly is one who is missed in the teaching given to us. at best in the list he is mentioned as the "cousion" to mark.,,,,in chapter 14 of acts when they are still yet to return to Jerusalem this "yoses" preforms some miracle acts 15;12,,,(luke leaves it out) but in acts 14; 11-12 the greeks are so taken by whatever barnabas(god in him) did they said "Barnabas is Jupiter" and Paul is mercury"the son of Jupiter",,,we know this is incorrect but as the scripture says here they "unbelievers",,,,,,were so taken by whatever Barnabas did they believed "they believed Barnabas was the stronger",,they called him "Jupiter/zues",,,the supreme god. and ranked the miracles of Paul as second,,,,,,,the "son of Jupiter",,,,but Luke does not reflect on it,that is he was brought back to the faith by Paul(so he is bias to Paul),,, before i pointed out in ch.16;11 luke then states "we,us",,,instead of "they them",,,,at this time Barnabas and paul have "split" luke has been "re-converted to the faith by paul" and he(Luke is traveling among this group),,,,Barnabas and mark go another direction. peter has converted mark back to the Gospel also by this time and he is re-united with Barnabas.(this will be evident later),,,,,"peter sent mark to Barnabas",,,,,,,not paul.

 

[iamsoandso]

i am not against Paul,,,i should state this at this point,,,,

 

[kenisyes]

I agree with your analysis, and have nothing to add or clarify at this point. And it never occurred to me to imagine that you were against Paul.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

,,,,yes this barnabas clearly is one who is missed in the teaching given to us. at best in the list he is mentioned as the "cousion" to mark.,,,,in chapter 14 of acts when they are still yet to return to Jerusalem this "yoses" preforms some miracle acts 15;12,,,(luke leaves it out) but in acts 14; 11-12 the greeks are so taken by whatever barnabas(god in him) did they said "Barnabas is Jupiter" and Paul is mercury"the son of Jupiter",,,we know this is incorrect but as the scripture says here they "unbelievers",,,,,,were so taken by whatever Barnabas did they believed "they believed Barnabas was the stronger",,they called him "Jupiter/zues",,,the supreme god. and ranked the miracles of Paul as second,,,,,,,the "son of Jupiter",,,,but Luke does not reflect on it,that is he was brought back to the faith by Paul(so he is bias to Paul),,, before i pointed out in ch.16;11 luke then states "we,us",,,instead of "they them",,,,at this time Barnabas and paul have "split" luke has been "re-converted to the faith by paul" and he(Luke is traveling among this group),,,,Barnabas and mark go another direction. peter has converted mark back to the Gospel also by this time and he is re-united with Barnabas.(this will be evident later),,,,,"peter sent mark to Barnabas",,,,,,,not paul.

mind telling me where you get this?

Acts: 15: 37 Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. 38 But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. 39 Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; 40 but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God. 41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

 

[iamsoandso]

I agree with your analysis, and have nothing to add or clarify at this point. And it never occurred to me to imagine that you were against Paul.

i thought i would say "i'm not against paul" just in general as others will also read our post. that is i took "every time the name barnabas was written in scripture",,,and researched the details surrounding. i new you had in probability done the same. and would not see it that way but thought because of the key actually being written in the facts of who the Greek gods Jupiter and mercury were. (it might bring another response from others),,,and that to others it might seem i was against Paul. Paul at times states as in Romans,,to "have respect for those in authority",,he also knows that Christ put the church under the authority of peter and the 12. so hence they go to them in ch. 15 of acts and discuss the matter. Paul made comments later in his different epistles such as "the thing i say i do not,i do..and that which i say do , i do not". Well that is peter who was the rock(and he knew it),,he also withstood face to face. Galatians 2;11,,and Barnabas respected the "ruler ship above him" Galatians 2;13. He(Paul) acknowledges the fact that his "right hands" were given to him by these three pillars gal2;9. and in Galatians 1;12 he states he did not receive it from men.He for the 2nd time found ought in Barnabas gal.2;13. That is in Galatians he gives the time frame of his ministry and mentions Barnabas as still being among him,but they seem not to agree as to the order. That is (in their customs) stating "Barnabas and Paul",,verses "Paul and Barnabas" denoted order of authority.Now the 12 always state "Barnabas and Paul" but after they differ "Luke"(bias to Paul)always states "Paul and Barnabas",but is evident understanding their customs the 12 saw "peter,the 11,Barnabas then Paul",,,such a puzzle to dig through the man they all love so dearly..

 

[iamsoandso]

i think here is the war of a mans mind "the least even he is the greatest",,,,,that is after the war in his head over 13,or 14,,,,,number 14 the least gave you most of the "the Gospel of Christ",,,

 

[kenisyes]

I know. I was just letting you know that I saw nothing you had posted that would cause anyone to think that.

I have never read the Jerusalem council stories as to imply Paul ever submitted to Peter. My understanding is that Paul respected Peter as the head of the church of the Jews only. The problem concerned both sides of the church, the Jews and the Gentile converts made by Paul. I don't think these people were as authority conscious as we are today. Apostles (not false ones of course) were equal, and authority was by consent of the members.

 

[iamsoandso]

ken,,may seem off the wall i keep looking at this. i remember, this is taken from infrared image, so i keep taking a "magnifying glass" and looking at the "iota",,, it looks by the naked eye to seem as tho there is a dot between stigma and iota. ,,,,well if you look close with a magnifying glass (hard to see on computer) there is a dot at the top between them (iota and stigma),,,but it does not connect back to stigma it goes back to "iota",,,,,,,,,,,might it not be iota at all?,,,,,think Babylonian 60's the same wedge,looked like a strange,,,"Y",,,,but is equal to either (1) or (60),,,,,,,which would bring it back to "600,60,6,",,,,,,,i think more on this they the "gnostic s",Egyptian had a manuscript 1650bc or so based on the same system.,,,"60's",,,,,,,i cant remember,Moscow manuscript,Babylonian 60's,,,,,,it's the math they used in Egypt from the time before the deluge/tlantas.,,,,,,,,,,looks like a wedge,,,eta still baffles me and again i may still be wrong.