M
yes thats my thinking also, in Hebrew it wont work out,only in Greek. so for barnabas to reach all the way back to the place in gen. where Abraham circumcised "318" was then "shin,alef,hei?" expressed in Hebrew. although the rest of barnabas seems to be in agreement with Irnaeus. now though as we have already researched from ch.1,book 1 against heretics from irenaeus he states "you changed the iota and eta,because it is the first two letters of his name",,so he(irenaeus) himself refers to the usage of the name "Ihsous" as the origin of "iota an eta". that is he said the phrase,,,"his name",and then said if you reduce it by 50 you come to "another name",,,then when he gives the example of "tieten",,in book 5 he states "in the first syllable,is I,E",,,,so it clarifies in his way of thinking "I,H",,belonged in the name of Christ,,,but "I,E",,belonged in the first syllable of the man of sins' name.(made me wonder why he changed dipthong/vowels),,,why does he think it's I,E instead of I,h?,,,see he clearly pointed this out. but as to barnabas,even paul stated "as if letters by me",,,so it is,in their day common practice to forge letters. i compared hippolitus,irenaeus,barnabas to each other to see how they explained "beast,7 heads,10 horns,mark of the beast,Babylon ect."they all seem to agree as to who,when they rise,ect. as for the "mark of the beast",all three state the holy spirit did not announce it and all 3 tell us to wait for the 10 horns to rise,then the little horn,ect.so barnabas,,,,hmmmm,what if he is the apostle?I had assumed that was where "Latin" came from, but when you mentioned again, I thought you had found a mention in another place, and that made me suspect there was more to it, so I asked.
I doubt Jesus ever went by the Greek version of His name in His life. First, was the epistle of Barnabas written by Barnabas? I doubt it. It was very common back then to write a book with someone else's name on it, to give it more authority, like "this is what Barnabas would say if he were writing this." They actually say that even about some of Shakespeare's plays and Bach's organ preludes. Jesus' name in Hebrew is Yeshua, yod (10) shin (300) vav(6) ayin (70). That obviously won't give you 18, no matter what you do with it. To get the 18, so you can get 18+12=30, you must translate the name to Greek, making certain vowel choices. Barnabas would have known better. That's part of why Iranaeus is complaining about the whole affair.
,,,,and should be Tietan alsoand see i almost said "shin alef tav",,,,but i didnt trust myself,,,how to say it?
and see i almost said "shin alef tav",,,,but i didnt trust myself,,,how to say it?
so 318 is alef shin cheth?Tav is the Th of Hebrew. It has numerical value 400. It look like Cheth, a hard "Ch" sound with numerical value of 8. The difference is tav has a little hook on the lower left corner.
so 318 is alef shin cheth?
In post 193,,this i copy and pasted from the www. I searched for "318 ioa eta" ect. to see what came up. i suppose the danger of the "copy and paste" technique is the same error being multiplied. i knew that there were different formulas some have tried in calculating 666, some relating that i was to be calculated with Hebrew numbers/letters now i notice from viewing all of the different www pages where we find this that they all make the same common mistake,that is they do not begin at gen.15;2 and remain with the correct spelling. in gen. 15;2 it is spelled "Eliezer",,but then for the number puzzle they then change it to "Eleazar".Good summary. Once clarification. It makes no difference in the final total but aleph=1 and ayin=70. You have them switched.
The correct conclusion, by the way, is that first 10, then 8, then 300, spells yachash in Hebrew, referring to Strong's 3187-3188, to enroll in a family.
yes i agree,,,they for one reason thought to apply it in the fragment 115,,,i think it was not correct,but that we will not understand the true mark unless we "put ourselves" in their shoes.,,,,,,here is what i notice,,irenaeus points out(to the gnostics) "you changed I,h",,then says they would come to an incorrect name.,,,then at the end of book 5 give the example "Teitan"(but states he does not supply it as the name),,so as if we are working with algebra to solve the "unknown",,,so the only thing they are doing similar to each other in calculating the name is that they are "working with vowels" That is if in the autograph if this was written "six hundred sixty,six",,then we have all the vowels and consonants supplied.so they in these letters would be saying "you already have the vowels dont change them",,but see one thinks "ih" the other 'IE",,so they all are approaching this as if it is written nomina sacra "666" and then working with this they are all proceeding to pull from things in the scriptures to find the correct vowels with 666 to form the name. now paul died some where between ad 65-68 and so the date of writing rev. of christ come to play early 65'ish or the late after ad70. it seems paul was in custody by the early date or was already dead by the time of the Revelation. but either way ''what he may or may not have said in his inner circle" would be before rev.,,,,the just of what i am saying is that i notice every one of these men are working with math,,,but they are looking for a common answer,"they are calculating the vowels to apply to an abbreviated name" the same as with all of the words or names they were afraid to say out loud. and it seems possable "someone told them the answer is already written in the bible" i.e. 600 because Noah was 600,,60 cubits tall,six cubits wide,,,and then their all looking at the story surrounding 318. im not advocating 318 as the "solution",,but it seems someone directed them all to that "general area to look for the vowels",,some where in that story.Your statement is quite correct. It was very common for rabbis (which Paul was) to "teach secrets". This phrase means that they discussed things that were hypothetical. I would not doubt that Paul noted that 318 could do just that with his students. We would call it a discussion, not "secrets". It is not "wisdom we express among the spiritually mature". It's having fun. It was never intended to be teaching. It is not a teaching, it does not build the Body. it does not add to our knowledge of Jesus. Only an immature student would take it and start teaching it.