"and the word became flesh"

[sylvius]

John 1:14 doesn't read "and God became flesh"

but: "and the word became flesh"

flesh being Hebrew "basar", root of "b'sorah"= gospel.

the word that was in the beginning has become human language= tongue.

and then
kai eskhnwsen en hmin "kai eskhnwsen en hmin", = "and dwelled in us"

"en hmin" = in us.

not in you!
which means:
it is not objective historical truth.


"en hmin" also in: .

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

and

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.



check it out Sparko!

[apostoli]

Hello sylvius,

Though your post was to Sparko, I wish to examine your inventive excursus. But first lets recap the conversation, which I deduced searching Google was in the thread "Question for all Jews: Do you believe in the NT?"

I wanted to ask the question if Jews believed in the NT, or the christian trinity for that matter. Negative on both accounts. The NT is too broad of a topic to cover objections to, but the Trinity is quite simply anathema to a Judaic POV.[/QUOTE]Not neccessarily. The first century Jewish philosopher Philo referred to the Logos as a second God, so at least binitarianism was not entirely foreign to Judaeism of the time.

...what exactly happened that would cause devout, observant Jews to come to believe that YHWH had become somehow incarnate in a human being.Amazing Rando may have been imprudent in his assertion. Admittedly their are schismatics such as pentecostal oneness believers who might assert such, ut such groups trace their roots back to physicalisation of spiritual truths. Nowhere in scripture does it say YHWH became incarnate. However, it does say that his Son did! (see below)

where exactly in NT is it stated then, that "YHWH had become somehow incarnate in a human being", what book, what verse?John 1; Word == God; Word --> Flesh; Word == Jesus; God == Jesus == Flesh;"and the word became flesh'' is written, John 1: 14 not "and the word became a human being"; remember: man was made by hand, Genesis 2:7; you are just idol-worshippers, all of you; flesh is Hebrew "basar", root of "besorah"= Gospel.besorah is from the verb basar not the noun basar (see below). So your premise that John 1:14 has a parallel in Gen 2:7 is invalid

the miracle is that the word from the beginning can be spoken out; that it can be formed with tongue, lips, teeth, etc. that the word became human language.Even in Jewish thought the Logos holds a special place, and is not conceived as the capacity to speak but rather relates to the promulgation of doctrine, particularly the wisdom of the Torah.

Consider what various early Rabbis had to say "Although the rabbis taught that "Moses received the Torah from Sinai, they also taught it was in existence before the creation of the world, and Rabbi Akiva declared it to have been 'the precious instrument by which the world was created.' Rav Hoshaiah equated it with Wisdom described in the Book of Proverbs, and Philo, in his discussion of logos (word of God), identified the logos with the Torah. Such conjectures led to much discussion among several later Jewish philosophers."
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/t/torah.html

"en hmin" = in us. not in you! which means: it is not objective historical truth.I am curious about your context. Still, it might be useful to observe that nothing related in history is always "objective" nor "truth" (history always relates the bias of the author of the tale). However, in religion there is objective truth, it is simply a matter of seeking it out eg: Romans 1:19-22.

John 1:14 doesn't read "and God became flesh" but: "and the word became flesh"Agreed. Though, if we consider the NEB rendering of the last clause of John 1:1 "what God was, the Word was", we might get a better understanding of the terminating clauses of John 1:14. Isn't this what one would expect of an only Son?

It is also beneficial to keep in mind what A.John says regarding why he wrote the gospel "that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20:31)

Jesus remark at John 14:7 also seems to have relevence in understanding John 1:14 with John 1:1 "If you have known me, you should have known my Father"

flesh being Hebrew "basar", root of "b'sorah"= gospel.The lexicons show the word transliterated "basar" can be used as a verb=baw-sar' (eg: to bear news) or as a noun=baw-sawr' (ie: flesh) which itself has the root baw-sar.
http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=01319
http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=01320

As the Gospel was written in Greek, lets look at the word sarx, translated flesh. According to the lexicons it is a noun and has no other connotation, so the Hebrew would be the noun baw-sawr'=flesh=body.
http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=4561

I'm curious why you understand the noun b'sorah has relevence to John 1:14. The lexicon has b'sorah's root in the verb baw-sar', not the noun baw-sawr'. So it seems plain that it was not the preaching that became flesh. In contrast, I'd suggest that by the Logos becoming flesh, the preaching was fulfilled. (eg. John 1:45)
http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=01309

the word that was in the beginning has become human language=tongue.Would you expand on that (?). On face value it doesn't fit John 1:15-18. And it is in direct conflict with John 14:9 "He that has seen me has seen the Father"

God's word was already spoken in the temple (human language), so there would be nothing significant in what A.John relates if your premise was valid. Also consider, it was not just Jesus' words that were his witness, there was also his works.

Imu, the Jews, if reading A.John, would interpret "the Logos" as eing the Torah. Whether they would consider that it could become flesh and be personified by a single individual is a different question, and this, imu, is what A.John is basically implying. (see John 1:17; 1:12-13).

Some might identify "the Word" as "the Angel of the Lord" through whom God interacted with man in the OT (cp. Acts 23:8). In that regard a NetBible note is interesting: "The Greek word translated 'took up residence' (σκηνόω, skhnow) alludes to the OT tabernacle, where the Shekinah, the visible glory of God’s presence, resided. [A.John] is suggesting that this glory can now be seen in Jesus (note the following verse). The verb used here may imply that the Shekinah glory that once was found in the tabernacle has taken up residence in the person of Jesus. Cf. also John 2:19-21."
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=1&verse=14

and then και εσκηνωσεν εν ημιν "kai eskhnwsen en hmin", = "and dwelled in us" "en hmin" = in us. not in you! Have you considered Hebrews 2:14-18 & John 17:21-23? Jesus doesn't become "in anyone" until after the ascension and unless he is accepted. So the context of John 1:14 would indicate that "en hmin" should not be rendered "in us". If he was "in us" then the apostles would not have seen "his glory, such glory as befits the Father's only Son" (John 1:14)

Given eskhnwsen means tabernacled=to tent=take up residence. It would seem appropriate to render "en" with either the english word "among" or "with", rather than the simple "in". Especially as the text indicates a personal existence and association with us rather than an impassive possession.
http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=4637
http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1722

en hmin also in: 1John1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.A.John uses the phrase 7 times in his first letter. What are you attempting to demonstrate?
http://net.bible.org/search.php?search="in%20us"

and 1John 4:12-13
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.These texts and vs16 are relevant to John 1:14. Notice that the word translated dwell in the KJV (menei) is vastly different to the word (eskhnwsen) the KJV translates as dwelt at John 1:14. Menei has a sense of permanence, while eskhnwsen is more casual (ie: the Logos ascended to heaven so no longer resides in our locale, but retains his humanity).
http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=3306

[sylvius]

besorah is from the verb basar not the noun basar (see below). So your premise that John 1:14 has a parallel in Gen 2:7 is invalid



Flesh בָּשָׂר The word basar literally means "meat" such as in Exodus 12:8 but can also mean the whole of a person or animal such as in Genesis 6:13. A closely related word, besorah, the feminine form of basar, (Strong's #1309) means "good news" or "gospel." In the Ancient Hebrew culture a fatted animal is slaughtered for a feast at times of "good news" hence, the connection between basar and besorah.

can also mean the whole of a person or animal such as in Genesis 6:13

that 's still the question!

And God said to Noach, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth has become full of robbery because of them, and behold I am destroying them from the earth.


might there be a relation between Genesis 6:13 and John 1:14?

end of all flesh = קֵץ כָּל-בָּשָׂר = "kets kol-basar"

end of all good tidings?

Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood

ark = תֵּבָה = "teivah", can also mean word, word as written with letters.

the measurements are given:

And this you shall make it: three hundred cubits the length of the ark, fifty cubits its breadth, and thirty cubits its height.

300 = "shin" ; 50 = "nun" ; 30 = "lamed".

forming the word "lashon" = tongue, language.

tongue surely is flesh.

(there is more about it; i tried to explain already on TWeb; the ark was lifted up by the flood; was walking on the waters and touching with its top, the roofwindow, the fiftieth cubit above the earth; etc.)

Torah forms a whole.


R. Ammi said: He took counsel with his own heart. It may be compared to a king who had a place built by an architect, but when he saw it it did not please him: with whom is he to be indignant? surely with the archtect! Similarly, And it grieved Him at his heart (Genesis 6:6).

architect ? hey, weren't Jesus and his (step)father architects too? (Greek ; "(archi)tektwn")
chief-builders --

compare [I]and he begot a son Heb. בֵּן, from whom the world was built (נִבְנָה). - [from Tanchuma Bereishith 11]
which is about Lamech and Noach, 9th and 10th generation of Adam.

and remember teh menaing of the name Joseph:

So she named him Joseph, saying, "May the Lord grant me yet another son!"








Even in Jewish thought the Logos holds a special place, and is not conceived as the capacity to speak but rather relates to the promulgation of doctrine, particularly the wisdom of the Torah.

I don't know much about Philo.
wisdom is Hebrew "chochmah" -- gematria 73, number hidden in Genesis 1:1 (numerical value of Genesis 1:1 is 2701, which is triangular 73; which i think a miracle)

Revelation 13:18 reads "hwde hè sophia estin",e tc. "here is the wisdom" -- it is about the number 666 hidden in Genesis 1:31.

Consider what various early Rabbis had to say "Although the rabbis taught that "Moses received the Torah from Sinai, they also taught it was in existence before the creation of the world, and Rabbi Akiva declared it to have been 'the precious instrument by which the world was created.' Rav Hoshaiah equated it with Wisdom described in the Book of Proverbs, and Philo, in his discussion of logos (word of God), identified the logos with the Torah. Such conjectures led to much discussion among several later Jewish philosophers."
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/t/torah.html
Bereishit Rabbah Bereishit 1:1 explains Proverbs 8:30, and reads "amon", nursling, as "uman"= workman, artist, architect.

I am curious about your context. Still, it might be useful to observe that nothing related in history is always "objective" nor "truth" (history always relates the bias of the author of the tale). However, in religion there is objective truth, it is simply a matter of seeking it out eg: Romans 1:19-22.
But to those who did accept it (the true light] he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name,
"true light" == Hebrew "or haganuz" -- the light of the first day that is hidden for the wicked.
"accept" , Hebrew "kibbeil", root of "kabbalah"-
"children of God" - lamedvavniks? (the 36 righteous that are said to be present in every genration?)


Agreed. Though, if we consider the NEB rendering of the last clause of John 1:1 "what God was, the Word was", we might get a better understanding of the terminating clauses of John 1:14. Isn't this what one would expect of an only Son?
the accent is on "the word".

It is also beneficial to keep in mind what A.John says regarding why he wrote the gospel "that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20:31)
but it doens't say: "that you might believe the son of God is (or: has become) flesh."

Jesus remark at John 14:7 also seems to have relevence in understanding John 1:14 with John 1:1 "If you have known me, you should have known my Father"
it builds forth on the preceding verse:
No one comes to the Father except through me
which again seems to hint at '"I am the door" -- door, Hebrew "delet", with gematria 434 like teh 434 words of Genesis 1, "hashishi" being the 434th word.




I'm curious why you understand the noun b'sorah has relevence to John 1:14. The lexicon has b'sorah's root in the verb baw-sar', not the noun baw-sawr'. So it seems plain that it was not the preaching that became flesh.
no it was the word that became flesh



Have you considered Hebrews 2:14-18 & John 17:21-23? Jesus doesn't become "in anyone" until after the ascension and unless he is accepted. So the context of John 1:14 would indicate that "en hmin" should not be rendered "in us". If he was "in us" then the apostles would not have seen "his glory, such glory as befits the Father's only Son" (John 1:14)
the introduction of John is kind of compendium; the word becoming flesh in the last word of Jesus "tetelestai" (John 19:30) ; which is referring to the first word of Genesis 2:1.

Given eskhnwsen means tabernacled=to tent=take up residence. It would seem appropriate to render "en" with either the english word "among" or "with", rather than the simple "in". Especially as the text indicates a personal existence and association with us rather than an impassive possession. --"tabernacled" I think has to do with "the way" -- way through the desert.


A.John uses the phrase 7 times in his first letter. What are you attempting to demonstrate?

that John 1:14 is not about an objective historical fact.


These texts and vs16 are relevant to John 1:14. Notice that the word translated dwell in the KJV (menei) is vastly different to the word (eskhnwsen) the KJV translates as dwelt at John 1:14. Menei has a sense of permanence, while eskhnwsen is more casual (ie: the Logos ascended to heaven so no longer resides in our locale, but retains his humanity).

there is permanent presence in the 42 stations of the desert -journey --

same I think expressed in And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age

[barnasha]

that John 1:14 is not about an objective historical fact.


this is something I have heard even from Roman Catholic theologists (who went through seminary). The real meaning of the gospel is not something that can be derived by reading it as a mere history book. One must coincide with it and read spiritually as well as literally, otherwise, it's just another book.

This is not any different from how the Hebrew revelations and scriptures were used... (nor the Islamic ones)

[apostoli]

Hello sylvius,

A.John uses the phrase 7 times in his first letter. What are you attempting to demonstrate?that John 1:14 is not about an objective historical fact.Given 1 John 1:1-3 & 4:9-17, I'd suggest that A.John is proclaiming what he understood to be a historical fact. And I'd go further and suggest he is being objective in his understanding. See John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12,15. In these verses he says no one has ever seen God. Indeed no one ever has, but God sent his Son, through and by whom the Logos of his Father is revealed.

I'm assuming your objective is to show that the Son is not the personal Logos of the Father - His introspective speech, thought & reason. If so, John 1:1 agrees. However, Logos must be communicated to have effect. And scripture leads me to understand that the Father communicates his Logos to his Son, who by the Father's will communicates it in creation and to mankind. In John 1:1 the Logos is face to face (gr. pros) with the Father, and in John 1:14 the Logos is incarnate (comes to dwell with man) to fully reveal our Father (vs18).

and 1John 4:12-13 - No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.These texts and vs16 are relevant to John 1:14. Notice that the word translated dwell in the KJV (menei) is vastly different to the word (eskhnwsen) the KJV translates as dwelt at John 1:14. Menei has a sense of permanence, while eskhnwsen is more casual (ie: the Logos ascended to heaven so no longer resides in our locale, but retains his humanity).there is permanent presence in the 42 stations of the desert -journey -- same I think expressed in Matthew 28:20 "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age"Indeed he remains with his followers always, but not in the context of John 1:14. Notice A.John's words (in bold above) and how the Son & the Father remains with us (cp. Romans 8:8-17).

besorah is from the verb basar not the noun basar. So your premise that John 1:14 has a parallel in Gen 2:7 is invalidbesorah, the feminine form of basar, (Strong's #1309) means "good news" or "gospel." In the Ancient Hebrew culture a fatted animal is slaughtered for a feast at times of "good news" hence, the connection between basar and besorah.OK. I see where you are coming from. It is an interesting association in regards to the whole gospel but imu, it has little relevence to John 1:14. Notice John in vs14 talks of the Logos becoming flesh and then in vs15 goes straight into the preaching of John the Baptist concerning the arrival of the messiah.

can also mean the whole of a person or animal such as in Genesis 6:13that's still the question!Was Moses and the prophets baw-sawr'? Did they convey the Logos of God to the people?

Genesis 6:13 "And God said to Noach, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth has become full of robbery because of them, and behold I am destroying them from the earth."

might there be a relation between Genesis 6:13 and John 1:14? end of all flesh = "kets kol-basar". end of all good tidings?I perceive that the Logos becoming flesh is the start of good tidings. So in that regard no.

Imu, kol basar refers to "all flesh". Compare Genesis 7:4 where God says he'll destroy every living thing (kol hayekum) that he had made. As we know Noah, his family and a bunch of animals weren't destroyed, so from the whole story there was a qualification = those disoedient to God's will be destroyed, those who are obedient will be saved.

The parrallel to Jesus, is that all who believe in him and follow his example will be saved from certain destruction.

Genesis 6:14 Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood. ark = "teivah", can also mean word, word as written with letters. the measurements are given: Genesis 6:15 -And this [is the size] you shall make it: three hundred cubits the length of the ark, fifty cubits its breadth, and thirty cubits its height.

300 = "shin" ; 50 = "nun" ; 30 = "lamed". forming the word "lashon" = tongue, language. tongue surely is flesh.

(there is more about it; i tried to explain already on TWeb; the ark was lifted up by the flood; was walking on the waters and touching with its top, the roofwindow, the fiftieth cubit above the earth; etc.)There is much we can read into the scriptures and I am reluctant to read them in a mystical sense. Still, your post has caused me to attempt to understand your point of view, so I did a search in google.

One article I enjoyed "Noah's Ark and the Gift of Cosmic Speech" explains the "shin nun lamed" combination explaining "Every word that we think and speak should be holy" an idea I would not attempt to refute.
http://www.inner.org/audio/aid/E_039.htm

Another article covering Kabalistic commentary I found less satisfactory (though I must admit I am deficient in esoteric maths) - Genesis 1:1 A Talisman of Liberation (Also looks at John 1:1). It comments that "What is just as intriguing is that which differs between the two verses. 3627 is not itself a triangular number but rather it is a number which when added to 2701 produces a triangular number - 6328 - the 112th triangular number. Thus 3627 may be envisioned as a "plinth" on which the number 2701 sits" -> To me this tends to provide evidence against your thoughts on John 1:14.
http://www.nick2211.yage.net/2701.htm

I read several articles some that might be worthy of a cite, others that imo rank with Star Trek, However, one jewish commentary from mid field concluded with what I thought was an insightful remark "when you have eliminated all possible explanations, the only remaining solution is the truth, no matter how impossible it seems."

[sylvius]

Hello sylvius,

Given 1 John 1:1-3 & 4:9-17, I'd suggest that A.John is proclaiming what he understood to be a historical fact. And I'd go further and suggest he is being objective in his understanding. See John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12,15. In these verses he says no one has ever seen God. Indeed no one ever has, but God sent his Son, through and by whom the Logos of his Father is revealed.

if was meant: "God became flesh" as "God became a human being", then seeing Jesus would have been seeing God.



I'm assuming your objective is to show that the Son is not the personal Logos of the Father - His introspective speech, thought & reason. If so, John 1:1 agrees. However, Logos must be communicated to have effect. And scripture leads me to understand that the Father communicates his Logos to his Son, who by the Father's will communicates it in creation and to mankind. In John 1:1 the Logos is face to face (gr. pros) with the Father, and in John 1:14 the Logos is incarnate (comes to dwell with man) to fully reveal our Father (vs18).

I think John wants be understood from out the Hebrew.

Hebrew language being the original language.

Greek "logos" to be understood as Hebrew "davar".

Strong indication for this i found in the number 153 in John 21:11.

153 being triangular 17; and 17 being gematria of Hebrew "tov"= good; and "tov" being the 153rd word of Torah (in Genesis 1:12)
I'm sure John is hinting at this.
Tried to explain already many times on TWeb.

this number is connected to the number 666 of Revelation 13:18. the number 666 being hidden in Hebrew Genesis 1:31; which I tried to explain also already many times.

so "logos" in John 1:1 is about the word that we know as built of letters; i.e. physical forms.

f.e. "tov" is formed by tongue, teeth and lips, around the vowel "o".


Was Moses and the prophets baw-sawr'? you mean Gospel?

No. Moses died in the desert, in the 42nd station, right before the entrance of the promised land.
He brought us, so to speak, to the door.



I perceive that the Logos becoming flesh is the start of good tidings.

yes, that's what i wanted to contend too.

Imu, kol basar refers to "all flesh". Compare Genesis 7:4 where God says he'll destroy every living thing (kol hayekum) that he had made. As we know Noah, his family and a bunch of animals weren't destroyed, so from the whole story there was a qualification = those disoedient to God's will be destroyed, those who are obedient will be saved.

obedient to what?

there is written : "noach found mercy" --Hebrew "chen" -- which is not a reward for good behaviour.

The parrallel to Jesus, is that all who believe in him and follow his example will be saved from certain destruction.

maybe the same: we don't have to earn salvation; but: we're saved!

[apostoli]

Hello sylvius;

if was meant: "God became flesh" as "God became a human being", then seeing Jesus would have been seeing God.Ah! But God is spirit, is love etc Seperate the things imagined of gods and think upon the Father, the only true God and your devotion may change to purity of the sprirt! Jesus came, according to the witness of A.John, to be a witness of his Father's work. And the Father is a witness to the work of his Son. So yes! In the purpose of the Son we see the purpose of the Father. We see God in action. This is totally consistent with the teaching of Moses & the prophets!

[apostoli]

Hi sylvius,

Given 1 John 1:1-3 & 4:9-17, I'd suggest that A.John is proclaiming what he understood to be a historical fact...if was meant: "God became flesh" as "God became a human being", then seeing Jesus would have been seeing God.As you pointed out previously the text says the Logos became flesh = the man named Jesus.

God is spirit, so it isn't with the eyes that we see him. However, in any Son we can often see their Father - the influences, personality etc that shape the son.

Note Jesus' words at John 14:10 "Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwells in me he does the works."

I think John wants be understood from out the Hebrew.When A.John wrote the Gospel his haunts were in the south west of Turkey. He is writing in terms that the local Christians would understand, whether their background had been jewish or gentile - both were heavily hellenised. Undoubtedly the reason he wrote in greek and used the logos terminology.

Hebrew language being the original language. Greek "logos" to be understood as Hebrew "davar".We have to consider why A.John wrote his gospel. There were already three in circulation. Imu, his aim wasn't to defend or explain the teachings of the Torah but to combat the perversions of greek thought that regularly crept into the early church.

Strong indication for this i found in the number 153 in John 21:11. 153 being triangular 17; and 17 being gematria of Hebrew "tov"= good; and "tov" being the 153rd word of Torah (in Genesis 1:12) I'm sure John is hinting at this.
Tried to explain already many times on TWeb.In his long career preaching around the Aegean we must assume he used the ordinary language of the people. But I'll concede that in his time, there may have been a common understanding regarding symbolic numbers. Where I live, if we call someone a 28 30 or assign them a 4 it means that someone is an idiot - How that arose: 2830 is the postcode of the town of Dubbo, which is in sheep country, thus 2830=Dubbo=Sheep=stupid animal.

The danger of getting carried away with esoteric info is, we may lose sight of the big picture. How many fish were caught doesn't appear to be the immediate issue A.John describes. 153 just happens to be an important number in pythagorean maths. So it may have been very familar to A.John's audience. It has some interesting qualities - see link below.
http://www.scripturessay.com/q416a.html

Anyway have a close look at John 21:3 onwards, the disciples had been fishing all night and caught nothing. vs6, this guy tells them to cast the net "on the right side of the boat" and "now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fish." But the really important thing is until that happened they didn't realise the guy was Jesus!

In regards to John 21:11, imu, the 153 fish aren't important, but the fact that the net was not torn is!

Many a curious mind has looked at this number 153. Grant Jeffrey’s book "Unveiling Mysteries of the Bible" says that Lt. Col. R. Roberts, discovered that the four Gospels record precisely 153 individuals who were specifically blessed by Jesus Christ.
http://www.konig.org/wc9.htm

Wikipedia notes that the Isopsephia of the Greek term translated as The Net is exactly the same as that for Fishes, and by choosing a 4x4 grid, in addition to the body of the fish (i.e. vesica piscis) that exists for the net itself we also have 16 smaller bodies of fish, due to each cell in the grid being mathematically similar to the net; by numbering each of these fish and adding up the numbers, we end up with the total of the numbers of the fish being 153
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_of_153_fish


this number [17] is connected to the number 666 of Revelation 13:18. the number 666 being hidden in Hebrew Genesis 1:31; which I tried to explain also already many times.According to ask the Rabbi "The number 666 has significance as the numerical value of the Hebrew verse: "Ata yigdal na koach Ado-nai -- Now, I pray, let the Power of my Lord be great." (Numbers 14:17). This was Moshe's prayer invoking Divine Mercy on behalf of the Jewish People...666 is six repeated three times. Repeating a concept three times represents the affirmation and strength of that concept. The number 666 could thus represent the strength and perfection of the physical world, which Judaism teaches will occur in the messianic era, when the physical world will reach its ultimate purpose, to be a vehicle through which the created experience the Creator."
http://ohr.edu/ask/ask277.htm

Given the basis of life on earth is carbon and one carbon atom normally consists of 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons, tends to make one look at Gen 13:18 with a brighter light. But I think it inadvisable to equate Rev 13:18 with Gen 13:18, they indicate opposing ideas.

Have a read of 1 John 4:2,3,6 & 9.

so "logos" in John 1:1 is about the word that we know as built of letters; i.e. physical forms. f.e. "tov" is formed by tongue, teeth and lips, around the vowel "o".Imu, A.John uses the word rheemata when he is referring to the spoken word/s. Whereas he uses logos in the sense of "a teaching, a doctrine, an object of intellectual apprehension". See if you can get your hands on the book "The Johannine Logos", by Gordon H. Clark

Was Moses and the prophets baw-sawr'?you mean Gospel?

No. Moses died in the desert, in the 42nd station, right before the entrance of the promised land. He brought us, so to speak, to the door.From our earlier conversation on baw-sar (eg: to bear news) versus baw-sawr (ie: flesh), I was asking if you believe Moses was a real person or just a metaphor. It seems you believe him to be a real person.

The other question I presented was: Did Moses & the prophets convey the Logos of God to the people? I presume you would say yes. However, note that Jesus in the sermon on the mount and elsewhere indicates Moses got it wrong by adding his own ideas to the law of God.

I asked these two questions, to firstly reason that both Moses and Jesus were real people. Secondly, to argue that prideful man, even when in direct communication with God, always fiddles with God's actual will. And lastly, to suggest that God sent his Son=the Logos=Jesus into the world to help us get it right.

might there be a relation between Genesis 6:13 and John 1:14? end of all flesh = "kets kol-basar". end of all good tidings?I perceive that the Logos becoming flesh is the start of good tidings. So in that regard no.yes, that's what i wanted to contend too.Thinking back to your earlier post. There will be some who find John 1:14 "end of good tidings" eg: Mt 25:41 ;-)

there is written : "noach found mercy" --Hebrew "chen" -- which is not a reward for good behaviour.The parrallel to Jesus, is that all who believe in him and follow his example will be saved from certain destruction.maybe the same: we don't have to earn salvation; but: we're saved!True we can't earn our salvation. It is a free gift. But it is a gift one has to accept gracefully and use to our benefit (actually enter the ark).

[sylvius]

True we can't earn our salvation. It is a free gift. But it is a gift one has to accept gracefully and use to our benefit (actually enter the ark).

or go out of the ark?

Genesis 8:16

[apostoli]

Hi sylvius,

True we can't earn our salvation. It is a free gift. But it is a gift one has to accept gracefully and use to our benefit (actually enter the ark).or go out of the ark? Genesis 8:16Would you expand on that.

In Gen 7:16, it is God that closes the door and in Gen 8:15 it is God that tells Noah when to leave the ark and participate in the new world. Imu, Noah did nothing without God's instruction. If that is your understanding also - we are in agreement.

The NT constantly tells us to seperate ourselves from this world and await the coming of our Lord. So imu, at this point in time we are encouraged to enter the ark (ie: the =body of Christ) putting full trust in God, and wait for further instructions :-)

Jesus refers to Noah entering the ark in Matthew 24:36-42 (NEB). His context is the gathering of the elect (Mt 24:31)

"about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the Son; only the Father. As things were in Noah's day, so will they be when the Son of Man comes. In the days before the flood, they ate and drank and married, until the day that Noah entered the ark...Keep awake then, for you do not know on what day your Lord is to come." (NEB)

-----------------
Something I thought I'd share...

Recently I read an article on how a 1st century Jew would have understood Jesus' words at Mt 24:36.

Previously, when I read "they ate and drank and married", my focus was "as in the day's of Noah" and that immediately conjured up the thought of a depraved world. But notice Jesus does not put any bad connotations on what the people were doing. Whats wrong with eating, drinking and marrying? Absolutely nothing! It seems Jesus' words could be understood as describing what goes on at a typical marriage feast. Such an understanding gives greater light to vs36 "that day and hour no one knows...only the Father" and vs42 "Keep awake then, for you do not know on what day your Lord is to come."

...[Jesus] was a Jew and talked...like a Jew. [And so,] some of the things He said [which] don't...make sense to our 21st century minds...would have made perfect sense to a Jew in Jesus' day. Jesus often referred to Himself as the Bridegroom and we (the church) as the Bride. Now look at this passage: Matthew 24:36-41...What does that have to do with a bride and bridegroom? Well to us, today, probably not much, but to a Jew in the first century it would have made perfect sense. For us to understand it we need to understand the Jewish marriage custom.

In the Jewish wedding of the first century, after the Bridegroom paid the Bride price, after he offered the cup of wine signifying the covenant he was making with his bride, he would go to his father's house and build on a room or rooms for himself and his bride to live in. During the time the bridegroom was preparing this home for his bride the bride would still be at her father's home waiting and watching for her bridegroom to come get her.

She had to be ever vigilant because she did not know how long it would be before her bridegroom would return for her. When he left to go to prepare the room, the bridegroom could not tell his bride how long it would be before he came back for her. He would have been anxious to come back, but it was not up to him. It was up to his father. The son would build the room and prepare a place for his bride, but it was his father who would finally say, it is time to go get your bride, the room is finished. It could be in the morning that the father said that, or it could be during the night, the bridegroom did not know when it would happen, and neither did the bride, who was waiting for him to come back for her.

Now go back and re-read that passage [John 14:2-3] where Jesus explains that He is going to prepare a place for us and that even He does not know when He will return. This would have instantly been understood by His listeners as a bridegroom going to prepare a place for his bride and his father having the say as to when it was finished.
http://www.behindthebadge.net/articles/a117.html

[sylvius]

Hi sylvius,

Would you expand on that.

In Gen 7:16, it is God that closes the door and in Gen 8:15 it is God that tells Noah when to leave the ark and participate in the new world. Imu, Noah did nothing without God's instruction. If that is your understanding also - we are in agreement.

maybe God closed the door so that no one else could enter, salvation being a matter of pure grace (Hebrew "chen" -- root of the name Yehochanan = John ).


The NT constantly tells us to seperate ourselves from this world and await the coming of our Lord. So imu, at this point in time we are encouraged to enter the ark (ie: the =body of Christ) putting full trust in God, and wait for further instructions :-)
Noach had already separated himself from the world for 120 years, the 120 years of construction of the ark.

Jesus refers to Noah entering the ark in Matthew 24:36-42 (NEB). His context is the gathering of the elect (Mt 24:31)

"about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the Son; only the Father. As things were in Noah's day, so will they be when the Son of Man comes. In the days before the flood, they ate and drank and married, until the day that Noah entered the ark...Keep awake then, for you do not know on what day your Lord is to come." (NEB)

key word here seems to be "keep awake" - "grhgoreite oun" - which I think is wordplay with Hebrew "shakad"( to be alert)/"shaked" (almond) like in Jeremiah 1:11-12.

another word for almond being "luz", the name of the bone from man is resurrected; and also the name of the place where Jacob dreamt of the ladder up to heaven.
(Genesis 28)

-----------------

[apostoli]

Hi sylvius,

In Gen 7:16, it is God that closes the door and in Gen 8:15 it is God that tells Noah when to leave the ark and participate in the new world. Imu, Noah did nothing without God's instruction...maybe God closed the door so that no one else could enter, salvation being a matter of pure grace (Hebrew "chen" -- root of the name Yehochanan = John ).That is a good observation!

Though Jewish tradition has it that Og "the last of the Rephaim" (see Deut. 3:11, Joshua 12:4) either walked behind the ark, resided on deck or clung to the steps of the ark. One Midrash has it that Noah provided him with a special compartment.

The NT constantly tells us to seperate ourselves from this world and await the coming of our Lord. So imu, at this point in time we are encouraged to enter the ark (ie: the =body of Christ) putting full trust in God, and wait for further instructions :-)Noach had already separated himself from the world for 120 years, the 120 years of construction of the ark.In the version that has come down to us, so it would seem. Though, it might be prudent to remember that A.Peter calls him "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Pe 2:5)

Possibly this reflects Jewish tradition (eg: the Book of Jasher) "Speak ye, and proclaim to the sons of men, saying, Thus saith the Lord, return from your evil ways and forsake your works, and the Lord will repent of the evil that he declared to do to you, so that it shall not come to pass. For thus saith the Lord, Behold I give you a period of one hundred and twenty years; if you will turn to me and forsake your evil ways, then will I also turn away from the evil which I told you, and it shall not exist, saith the Lord. And Noah and Methuselah spoke all the words of the Lord to the sons of men, day after day, constantly speaking to them...In his five hundred and ninety-fifth year Noah commenced to make the ark, and he made the ark in five years, as the Lord had commanded."

Jesus refers to Noah entering the ark in Matthew 24:36-42 (NEB). His context is the gathering of the elect (Mt 24:31)...key word here seems to be "keep awake" - "grhgoreite oun" - which I think is wordplay with Hebrew "shakad"(to be alert)Though the NEB renders "gregoreite" literally as "keep awake", the KJV,RSV & NWT rendering give the idea of "be alert" ie: "watch", "keep on the watch". The same at Mt 25:13.

"shaked" (almond) like in Jeremiah 1:11-12.An interesting play on words. The Lord asks Jeremiah what he saw, "An almond (shaqedh) in early bloom" Jeremiah answered and the Lord replied "for I am early on the watch (shoqedh) to carry out my purpose" (NEB). "for I am watching (shoqedh) over my word to perform it (RSV) "for I am keeping awake (shoqedh) concerning my word in order to carry it out" (NWT).

another word for almond being "luz", the name of the bone from man is resurrected;I didn't know that!

There is a small bone in the body at the base of the spinal column called the Luz bone (believed to be either the top bone of the spine - the atlas, or the bottom - the socrum or coccyx) ) from which the body will be rebuilt at the time of resurrection . Muslims and Jews share the belief that this bone does not decay . Muslim books refer to this bone as "^Ajbu al-Thanab". In Judaism, Rabbi Joshua Ben Hananiah replied to Hadrian, as to how man revived in the world to come, "From Luz, in the back-bone."
http://www.babylon.com/definition/luz/English

[luz is] also the name of the place where Jacob dreamt of the ladder up to heaven. (Genesis 28)Gen 28:19, "and he called that place Bethel". Though see Judges 1:22-26. Thats interesting ;-)

[sylvius]

Though Jewish tradition has it that Og "the last of the Rephaim" (see Deut. 3:11, Joshua 12:4) either walked behind the ark, resided on deck or clung to the steps of the ark. One Midrash has it that Noah provided him with a special compartment.


I think Og remained at the outside of the ark--

ark = "teivah" = word (as a construction of letters)

(Jesus and Joseph said to be carpenters -- I think meant as constructors of the word)

so Og, I think, is like the father of all those at the outside, Mark 4:11-12.

reading the bible as an account of historical events, like also the story of the flood.

interesting is thecommentary of Rashi on Genesis 14:13

And the fugitive came
According to its simple meaning, this was Og, who escaped from the battle, and that is what is referred to in (Deut. 3:11): “Only Og survived from the rest of the Rephaim.” And that is the meaning of “survived,” that Amraphel and his allies did not kill him when they smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim [Midrash Tanchuma (Chukkath 25)]. The Midrash Gen. Rabbah [explains]: This is Og, who escaped from the Generation of the Flood, and this is the meaning of “from the rest of the Rephaim,” as it is said: (above 6: 4):“The Nephilim were on the earth, etc.”
And he [Og] intended that Abram should be killed and he would marry Sarah (Gen. Rabbah 42:8).

"Og intended"- like fundamental Christianity ?

[apostoli]

Hello sylvius,

I think Og remained at the outside of the arkI've attempted to look into the problem of Og.

"As the floodwaters swelled, Og, king of Bashan, sat himself on one of the rungs of the ark's ladders and swore to Noah and to his sons that he would be their slave forever. What did Noah do? He punched a hole in the ark, and through it he handed out food to Og every day. Og's survival is hinted at in the verse 'Only Og remained of the remnant of the Rephaim' (Deut 3:11)." (From Pirkei D'Rebbe Eliezer 23 as quoted in The Book of Legends edited by Hayim Nahman Bialik.)
http://www4.jrf.org/showres&rid=66

Imo, this addition to the biblical account complicates the Noah story, and the other associated Og tales complicate the simplicity of Moses' account of his battles. It seems to me that if the Jewish tradition regarding Og had any basis it would have been included in the Torah. I raise Og, as an example of how allegorising scripture can lead to all types of fantasy that obscures plain teaching.

so Og, I think, is like the father of all those at the outside, Mark 4:11-12.I'm undecided on that. Given the full Og account upto Moses, maybe Mark 4:13-15 is more appropriate.

If we take the Og tales as valid in understanding the flood, it could imply that there are two paths to salvation. However, in a Jewish sense I think in the tale Noah=God's elect and Og=those that cling to the elect (those that adhere to the Law but will gradually fall away).

Of interest: the Midrash identifies Eliezer, Abraham's servant, as Og. The commentary on why Moses feared Og is very interesting - Og being circumcised and the Jews at the time not. So perhaps there is more to the tale = even though Og was a survivor, ultimately he perished effectively by the hand of God, his circumcision counting against him.
http://www.aish.com/torahportion/moray/Og.asp

reading the bible as an account of historical events, like also the story of the flood.Imu, the bible should be read as a historical document but not necessarily as a scientific history. That is: it should be read as the history of the progressive revelation of God and his purpose. Imo, the fillers througout the scriptures, the human recounts, are simply examples of man's failure when he/she are left to their own devices.

In regards to the flood, it seems there is a tradition concerning "a flood" in most religions. But as floods are common in many places, that wouldn't be unusual. From what I've read, the difference between tales is that only Genesis has God saving the hero.

You have raised an issue which requires thought. Imu, a certain amount of literism must be granted the scriptures. Some of the legends contained in the Talmud etc, demonstrate the danger of over allegorising and should stand as a warning to us of what happens when immaginations are allowed to run wild (eg: Og clinging to the ark).

The Talmud & Midrash are said to be full of strange imaginings, especially regarding Og, that have caused Rabbi to wonder. Maimonides in Guide for the Perplexed (2.47) suggested, taking scripture literally helps to get a true understanding.

Dr. Admiel Kosman's notes in his paper, Was Og Just a Tall Story? "Allegorical interpretation of the legend [in the Talmud] in one way or another reads the legend as symbolizing elevated spiritual matters, laden with significance. It assumes in this case that Og's might and giant size should be viewed as symbolizing another sort of might, not necessarily physical, as we imagine when we read the story according to the plain sense of Scripture. Thus in these commentaries, even if this is not stated explicitly but rather obliquely, [Moses'] war on Og is transformed from an historical national war, as presented in Scripture, to a mythical war taking place in worlds not disclosed to the human eye."
http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/chukath/kos.html

Dr. Kosman, identifies a need for allegory to explain certain mystical parts of the Talmud, but in regards to the Torah literalism is prudent. After quoting Maimonides and other expositions of the Torah regarding Og's bedstead, Dr Kosman suggests "these commentators emphasize that according to the literal sense of Scripture one should not accept the Talmud's explanation."

interesting is the commentary of Rashi on Genesis 14:13..."And he [Og] intended that Abram should be killed and he would marry Sarah (Gen. Rabbah 42:8)."

"Og intended"- like fundamental Christianity?I'm not sure of your context. Most religous groups place various emphasis on taking the scriptures literally (eg: Jesus did die and was resurrected). However, some groups/people go a little overboard emphasising aspects of scripture that have no relevence to the message (eg: God created the world in 144hours). Still, even amongst the literists, I am not aware of any sensible person who has plucked out an eye (though I wouldn't be surprised if there have been some).

I'm wondering if King David was related to Og :wink:

There is/was a Jewish teaching that Og was one of Noah's sons. If so, your observation regarding fundamentalists might be a warning to all of us. Once saved may not necessarily mean always saved. In that regard I thought a fuller quote from the Midrash would be of interest...

And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram, etc. (Genesis 14:13). Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said in the name of Bar Kappara: "That was Og; and why was he called Og? Because he came and found Abraham sitting and engaged in the precept of [unleavened] cakes. He did not act from a pious motive, but he said to himself: 'This man Abraham is vindictive: I will apprise him that Lot is captured; then will he go out to battle and be slain, while I will take Sarah.' 'By your life!' said the Holy One, blessed be He, to him, 'you will receive reward for your journey by living a long time in the world. But because you did intend to slay that righteous man, you will see myriads of his descendants and will ultimately fall into the hands of his sons.'"
http://www.aish.com/torahportion/moray/Og.asp

The link from which the above was taken is mainly concerned with Deuteronomy 1:1-3:22, and makes some interesting observations "To a large extent the Book of Devarim is a retrospective of events and laws taught in previous sections of the Torah...The context is after the battles with Sichon and Og...Moses begins to explain the Torah only after these battles have been completed...the significance of these particular battles seems obscure...the theme of fear of Og is mentioned...We see that the defeat of Og is the context which allows for the beginning of the book, and sets the stage for Moses teaching the Torah to the people. Additionally, we see that the battle with Og, more than other battles, was fraught with fear."

Makes me think of Romans 8:14-15 "The Spirit you have received is not a spirit of slavery leading you back into a life of fear, but a Spirit that makes us sons, enabling us to cry 'Abba Father!'" (NEB)

[sylvius]

Imo, this addition to the biblical account complicates the Noah story, and the other associated Og tales complicate the simplicity of Moses' account of his battles. It seems to me that if the Jewish tradition regarding Og had any basis it would have been included in the Torah. I raise Og, as an example of how allegorising scripture can lead to all types of fantasy that obscures plain teaching.


you say "obscure plain teaching";
i say these stories are meant to elucidate plain teaching.


Of interest: the Midrash identifies Eliezer, Abraham's servant, as Og.

The story of Lazarus in the Gospel of John might be rooted in here.

Lazarus Greek form of the name Eliezer.

Jesus calling him from the grave.

and then it says, John 11:44 "He came out" ; like Genesis 8:18; "and he came out, Noach and his sons and his wife and his son's wives with him" . LXX has same form "exèlthen" as Greek John 11:44.

Eliezer has gematria 318; like the 318 well-trained servants of Abraham with whom he won the war in favor of the five kings; and brought back Lot.
"Eliezer" - "ezer" = help.
Like using gematria might be of help; but not soul-saving.

Lot being father of the Messiah, via Rut.

Og knew that; and knew that because of that Abraham had no choice than come into action.

the story of the flood being kind of central in the Torah.

the flood coming at the end of the ten generations from Adam to Noach;
Noach to be seen as "Ben Adam" (in the genrationslist of Adam Genesis 5 there is never mentioning of "and he fathered a son" except in the case of Lamech (ninth generation).

the remarkable number 2701 of Genesis 1:1 is returning in Genesis 8:14, like kind of a cycle being completed. Genesis 8:14 is about the 365th day after the beginning of the flood.

Noach living 600 years before the flood and 350 years thereafter; yet reaching the age of 950 years, Genesis 9:28-29
like an indication that the year of the flood is of another order (than historic).


In regards to the flood, it seems there is a tradition concerning "a flood" in most religions. But as floods are common in many places, that wouldn't be unusual. From what I've read, the difference between tales is that only Genesis has God saving the hero.

Noach seeming to be not such an hero; but more like an anti-hero, a nut.

[Sevivon1913]

John 1:14 doesn't read "and God became flesh"

but: "and the word became flesh"

flesh being Hebrew "basar", root of "b'sorah"= gospel.

the word that was in the beginning has become human language= tongue.

and then
kai eskhnwsen en hmin "kai eskhnwsen en hmin", = "and dwelled in us"

"en hmin" = in us.

not in you!
which means:
it is not objective historical truth.


"en hmin" also in: .

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

and

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.



check it out Sparko!


You know, Sylvius; all this numerology and bizarre theology is starting to get creepy :lolo:

[sylvius]

You know, Sylvius; all this numerology and bizarre theology is starting to get creepy :lolo:


but still John 1:14 doesn't read: "and God became flesh".

just trying to save NT from the dogs.


by the way, term "new testament" is drawn from the saying of Jesus over the cup of wine:

"drink of this, all of you, for this is the new testament (or new covenant) in my blood".

blood seeming to be something very personal - no blood is the same;

phorensic scientists can identify a person from one drop of blood.

[Sevivon1913]

but still John 1:14 doesn't read: "and God became flesh".

just trying to save NT from the dogs.


by the way, term "new testament" is drawn from the saying of Jesus over the cup of wine:

"drink of this, all of you, for this is the new testament (or new covenant) in my blood".

blood seeming to be something very personal - no blood is the same;

phorensic scientists can identify a person from one drop of blood.
Why does your name have "Christian" next to it, when you don't believe the New Testament is historical? If it never happened, why believe it.........?

[sylvius]

Why does your name have "Christian" next to it, when you don't believe the New Testament is historical? If it never happened, why believe it.........?

you must be something here.

I am not Jewish.

Christian for me means Messianic.

and what's then Messianic?

there is another side to this life.

not to be understood as after-life.

death doesn't exist.

[apostoli]

Hello sylvius,

I'm short of time at the moment and may respond to your post more fully later. For now I'll respond to...

Lot being father of the Messiah, via Ruth.That doesn't work.

I accept the relationship Lot begets daughter, daughter births Moab, from which a nation arises, and into which Ruth is born. However, in the book of Ruth, David's lineage is traced through Boaz back to Perez (Ruth 4:17-22) . Elsewhere we know Perez's line is traced back to Abraham.

A very important point arises in Ruth 1:16 - she ceases to be a Moabite, she disinherits, divorces her lineage, cancelling any relationship to Moab.

Now consider Zephaniah 2:8-11. Both Lot's sons, Moab & Ammon (or at least the people that sprung from them) are cursed by God because they set themselves up against Israel. So on that account we know that the Messiah does not come through the line of Moab or Lot.

Thus Lot's only relationship to the Messiah is as a distant uncle..

[sylvius]

I accept the relationship Lot begets daughter, daughter births Moab, from which a nation arises, and into which Ruth is born. However, in the book of Ruth, David's lineage is traced through Boaz back to Perez (Ruth 4:17-22) . Elsewhere we know Perez's line is traced back to Abraham.

yet she is mentioned in the generationslist of Jesus , Matthew 1:5

of course it has a deeper meaning.

Moab being also the last station, the 42nd, of the desert-journey, where Pinchas appeared to be nobody else than Eliyah, in his zealous act, to return in NT as John the baptist.




A very important point arises in Ruth 1:16 - she ceases to be a Moabite, she disinherits, divorces her lineage, cancelling any relationship to Moab.

no she stayed the Moabitess until Boaz took her for a wife.

Rut 4:10
. And also, Ruth the Moabitess, Mahlon's wife, have I acquired for myself for a wife, to preserve the name of the deceased on his heritage, so that the name of the deceased not be obliterated from his brethren and from the gate of his place, you are witnesses today."

Now consider Zephaniah 2:8-11. Both Lot's sons, Moab & Ammon (or at least the people that sprung from them) are cursed by God because they set themselves up against Israel. So on that account we know that the Messiah does not come through the line of Moab or Lot.
that proofs the greatness of Boaz; true son of Judah; taking it on him.
(name Judah, Yehudah, from root "yadah" = to confess your sin, Genesis 29:35 )


Thus Lot's only relationship to the Messiah is as a distant uncle..

Hebrew "lot"= veil.

the very root of "revelation".

[apostoli]

Hello sylvius,

yet she is mentioned in the generationslist of Jesus , Matthew 1:5Yep! But not her geneology.

no she stayed the Moabitess until Boaz took her for a wife.They didn't have last names in those days, they tended to use family origins. eg: My surname relates to where my ancestors originated about 1000+ years ago.

As Ruth 3:16 shows, she turned her back on her people saying to her Hebrew mother-in-law "I will go where you go...your people will be my people, and your God my God." This is said in contrast to her sister-in-law who went back to her mothers house in Moab.

Rut 4:10 . And also, Ruth the Moabitess, Mahlon's wife, have I acquired for myself for a wife, to preserve the name of the deceased on his heritage, so that the name of the deceased not be obliterated from his brethren and from the gate of his place, you are witnesses today."Which explains why Boaz could repurchase her.

Hebrew "lot"= veil. the very root of "revelation".viel=concealing covering=Lot. Eg: Tamar's deception of Judah. It must not be forgot that Lot's house, through his sons, is cursed by God .

[sylvius]

Hello sylvius,

Yep! But not her geneology.

that's included.


They didn't have last names in those days, they tended to use family origins. eg: My surname relates to where my ancestors originated about 1000+ years ago.
that's not true.

Ruth 4:13

Boaz didn't look at family origins.

interesting here:
"and the Lord made her pregnant" -- which seems to echo in NT, in the immaculate conception.




Which explains why Boaz could repurchase her.

there was also a Mr. So-and-So; Mr. Anonymous; Mr. Average.
He was willing to purchase the land, but not the Moabitess with it.
Because of it's a public shame to marry a whore.




viel=conceal. Eg: Tamar's deception of Judah. It must not be forgot that Lot's house, through his sons, is cursed by God .


"lot" = veil, just 1 time in Tanach. Isaiah 25:7

[apostoli]

Hello sylvius,

that's not true.Oh yes it is! The "ben", "de", "da" thing is a late introduction. She had not conceived to her Hebrew husband, so in the Hebrew system she was a non-entity. Her only birthright being in the origins of her family. And this is the reason Boaz needed to repurchase her, as a daughter of Israel. The idea of reprurchase in the Hebrew system underlies the fact that in that system women were non-entities - a chattel - as reflected in European law into the early 20th century and current Islamic/Jewish law.

there was also a Mr. So-and-So; Mr. Anonymous; Mr. Average.
He was willing to purchase the land, but not the Moabitess with it.Best you actually read the book of Ruth, because Boaz was old, he tried to negotiate a better marriage for Ruth, a younger man within the family, but the nominee wouldn't buy Ruth's inheritence The righteousness of Boaz is that recognising kin responsibility he repurchased Ruth back into the inheritence debted from her dead husband.

Because of it's a public shame to marry a whore. The biblical account is she was a righteous woman and that is why Boaz married her and why God blessed the marriage. The reason she is included in Jesus' geneology is that she was exceptionally righteous!

You are confusing Judah's sins and Tamar's righteous deception that caused good with the Ruth story.

[sylvius]

Hello sylvius,

Oh yes it is! The "ben", "de", "da" thing is a late introduction. She had not conceived to her Hebrew husband, so in the Hebrew system she was a non-entity. Her only birthright being in the origins of her family. And this is the reason Boaz needed to repurchase her, as a daughter of Israel. The idea of reprurchase in the Hebrew system underlies the fact that in that system women were non-entities - a chattel - as reflected in European law into the early 20th century and current Islamic/Jewish law.

before you said something else, viz. that it was Ruth herself who cancelled any realtionship with Moab (as indicated in Ruth 1:16).

Best you actually read the book of Ruth, because Boaz was old, he tried to negotiate a better marriage for Ruth, a younger man within the family, but the nominee wouldn't buy Ruth's inheritence The righteousness of Boaz is that recognising kin responsibility he repurchased Ruth back into the inheritence debted from her dead husband.
that's complete nonsense.

Ruth 3:12
And now, indeed, I am a near kinsman, but there is a kinsman closer than I.
Rashi: closer than I for he is a brother, and I am a nephew.

The biblical account is she was a righteous woman and that is why Boaz married her and why God blessed the marriage.
where is that stated, what verse?

The reason she is included in Jesus' geneology is that she was exceptionally righteous!Matthew doesn''t say so.

You are confusing Judah's sins and Tamar's righteous deception that caused good with the Ruth story.


question is: what happened on the threshing-floor?

[apostoli]

Hello sylvius,

before you said something else, viz. that it was Ruth herself who cancelled any realtionship with Moab (as indicated in Ruth 1:16).Yep! There are several perspectives, that of the people Boaz is addressing, that of Boaz and that of Ruth herself.

In the Targum to Ruth, Ruth addresses Boaz, "Why have I found favor in your eyes that you should befriend me, seeing that I am of a strange people, of the daughters of Moab; of a people which has not the merit to intermarry with the congregation of the Lord? Boaz replied thus: 'It has been told to me on the authority9 of the sages, that when the Lord decreed [against intermarriage with Moab], He did not decree against the women, but against the men. Through prophecy I have been informed that kings and prophets are destined to descend from you, because of the kindness which you have shown your mother-in-law, in that you supported her after your husband died, and you left your gods and your people, your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and have gone to become a proselyte and to dwell in the midst of a people with whom you were unacquainted before.'"

The full text for the Targum of Ruth can be found at...
http://www.tulane.edu/~ntcs/meg/ruth.htm

Best you actually read the book of Ruth, because Boaz was old, he tried to negotiate a better marriage for Ruth, a younger man within the family, but the nominee wouldn't buy Ruth's inheritence The righteousness of Boaz is that recognising kin responsibility he repurchased Ruth back into the inheritence debted from her dead husband.that's complete nonsense.Is it? Boaz refers to the "young men" several times, so presumably he was not a young man. Note his words to Ruth at 3:14 "...Blessed be you...my daughter, for you have shown more kindness in the later end than in the beginning, inasmuch as you followed not young men". This is just after Ruth asked him to marry her. (vs9)

Surely Naomi knew the line of inheritence of her husband. But assuming not, we find Boaz even more righteous in sticking to the letter of the inheritence laws, even though he wanted to marry her.

Ruth 3:12 And now, indeed, I am a near kinsman, but there is a kinsman closer than I. Rashi: closer than I for he is a brother, and I am a nephew.I couldn't locate your quote of Rashi. So, I'm presuming you've selectively quoted him. Imu, if the other kin was a "brother" of Elimelech then he was obligated to take Naomi in and by extension Ruth (who would be the daughter of his nephew).

The Targum of Ruth has it (2:10) " "Blessed be you before the Lord, my daughter. The last good deed which you have done is better than the first. The first was that you became a proselyte, and the last, that you made yourself like a woman who waits for a small brother-in-law until he grows up, refraining from following young men, whether poor or wealthy, in order to carry on immoral relations with them."

According to Ruth 4:6 the other kinsman didn't purchase the inheritence "lest I mar my own inheritence".

The biblical account is she was a righteous woman and that is why Boaz married her and why God blessed the marriage.where is that stated, what verse?Targum of Ruth (3:11) "it is known to all who sit at the gate, the Great Sanhedrin, of my people, that you are a righteous woman and have the strength to bear the yoke of the commandments of the Lord."

You are confusing Judah's sins and Tamar's righteous deception that caused good with the Ruth story.question is: what happened on the threshing-floor? It seems after Boaz woke up, they had a chat and then "she lay at his feet until the morning".(Ruth 3:14)

Rabbi Dr Meir Levin has an article that discusses Rabbinic thought on Ruth 3:7-10
http://www.torah.org/learning/ruth/class28.html

The Targum of Ruth 3:14 says the same ut vs8 is more conclusive as to what happened "And it happened at midnight that the man shuddered and trembled, and, as a result, his flesh became as soft as a [boiled] turnip. Though he perceived a woman sleeping at his feet, [b]he subdued his evil inclination and did not draw nigh unto her, just like the righteous Joseph, who refused to draw nigh unto the Egyptian woman, the wife of his master; and just like the pious Paltiel, the son of Laish, who placed a sword between himself13 and Michal, the daughter of Saul and wife of David, refusing to approach her."

The reason she is included in Jesus' geneology is that she was exceptionally righteous!Matthew doesn''t say so.Matthew only mentions three women in his geneology and in each case the husband precedes the wife. "Judah begot Perez and Zorah of Tamar....Salmon begot Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begot Obed of Ruth..." (Mt 1:1-17 KJV).

Lot being father of the Messiah, via Ruth.I accept the relationship Lot begets daughter, daughter births Moab, from which a nation arises, and into which Ruth is born. However, in the book of Ruth, David's lineage is traced through Boaz back to Perez (Ruth 4:17-22) . Elsewhere we know Perez's line is traced back to Abraham.yet she is mentioned in the generationslist of Jesus , Matthew 1:5But not her geneologythat's included.
We only know she was a Moabite's daughter. Which one is not stated. Her geneology is not recorded.

In regards to your earlier idea "Lot being father of the Messiah, via Ruth" read Matthew 1:1-5 and note the line is traced from Abraham not Lot.

The significance of Matthew mentioning Tamar, Rahab and Ruth (and only these three women) in his geneology is that they had been idol worshippers who forsook their own people to follow the Lord. There is a message in that!

[sylvius]

Is it? Boaz refers to the "young men" several times, so presumably he was not a young man. Note his words to Ruth at 3:14 "...Blessed be you...my daughter, for you have shown more kindness in the later end than in the beginning, inasmuch as you followed not young men". This is just after Ruth asked him to marry her. (vs9)

these "young men" are not (said to be) near kinsmen.

Surely Naomi knew the line of inheritence of her husband. But assuming not, we find Boaz even more righteous in sticking to the letter of the inheritence laws, even though he wanted to marry her.
he wanted to marry her, yes , he wanted her badly, he desired to marry her.

I couldn't locate your quote of Rashi. So, I'm presuming you've selectively quoted him. Imu, if the other kin was a "brother" of Elimelech then he was obligated to take Naomi in and by extension Ruth (who would be the daughter of his nephew).
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=16455&showrashi=true

The Targum of Ruth has it (2:10) " "Blessed be you before the Lord, my daughter. The last good deed which you have done is better than the first. The first was that you became a proselyte, and the last, that you made yourself like a woman who waits for a small brother-in-law until he grows up, refraining from following young men, whether poor or wealthy, in order to carry on immoral relations with them."
they compare her to Tamar...

According to Ruth 4:6 the other kinsman didn't purchase the inheritence "lest I mar my own inheritence".
Rashi: lest I mar my heritage my offspring, like (Ps. 127:3): “Behold the heritage of the Lord is sons,” to give my offspring a stigma, as it is said (Deut. 23: 4): “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord,” but he erred by [not interpreting it as] “an Ammonite but not an Ammonitess.”

Targum of Ruth (3:11) "it is known to all who sit at the gate, the Great Sanhedrin, of my people, that you are a righteous woman and have the strength to bear the yoke of the commandments of the Lord."
but this is not the biblical account and it doesn't say that this is why Boaz married her and why God blessed the marriage.

It seems after Boaz woke up, they had a chat and then "she lay at his feet until the morning".(Ruth 3:14)
they had a chat?
Rashi ; his evil inclination was contending with him, “You are single, and she is single; be intimate with her” ; so he swore that he would be intimate with her only in marriage.

he wanted her badly...

like also Joseph desired Potiphar's wife; not just being a victim of her charms.
Genesis 39:11
And it came about on a certain day, that he came to the house to do his work, and none of the people of the house were there in the house.
Rashi:
to do his work [There is a controversy between] Rav and Shmuel. One said: his actual work, and the other said: to perform his needs with her, but his father’s image appeared, etc., as is stated in Sotah (36b).


We only know she was a Moabite's daughter. Which one is not stated. Her geneology is not recorded.
but mentioning Ruth means she is known -- as Moabitess - and Moab is known as being a son of Lot.

the intention of the daughters of Lot maybe even was good, Genesis 19:31,
. And the elder said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man on earth to come upon us, as is the custom of all the earth.
Rashi:
[B]and there is no man on earth They thought that the entire world had been destroyed, as in the Generation of the Flood (Gen. Rabbah 51:8).

same kind of intention to be found with Ruth:
hadn't she come to the threshingfloor , king David never would have been born ; and also not Jesus, the Savior of the world.

]In regards to your earlier idea "Lot being father of the Messiah, via Ruth" read Matthew 1:1-5 and note the line is traced from Abraham not Lot.
because Boaz is via Judah/Perez son of Abraham.

The significance of Matthew mentioning Tamar, Rahab and Ruth (and only these three women) in his geneology is that they had been idol worshippers who forsook their own people to follow the Lord. There is a message in that!

idol-worshippers?

Tamar is said to be a daughter of Shem.

[apostoli]

Hello sylvius,

There are diffeences in our belief systems, but rest assured I take you comments worthy of serious and profitable investigation. I trust, even if I err, or you err, that we show each other a similar respect, and thus we can benefit from each others acquired knowledge.

Rashi: closer than I for he is a brother, and I am a nephew.I couldn't locate your quote of Rashi.http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=16455&showrashi=trueThanks for the link to Rashi. His preceding comment is enlightning

And now indeed “If” is written but it is not read, i.e., it conveys the idea of doubt. There is surely a redeemer closer than I...Said Rabbi Joshua the son of Levi: Salmon, Elimelech, and Tov were brothers. Now what is the meaning of “that belonged to our brother, to Elimelech” ? A person always calls his uncle his brother, as is stated (Gen. 14: 14): “And Abram heard that his brother was captured.” Now was not Abraham his (Lot’s) uncle? Similarly, Boaz was Elimelech’s nephew, a kinsman of Mahlon, but Tov was closer.

Rabbi Yonason Abraham says "Rashi there quotes the Gemara in Bava Basra that Elimelech, Naomi's husband, had three brothers: Salmon, the father of Boaz, Ploni Almoni, the anonymously named next of kin who had first rights to do yibum with Ruth, and Naomi's father. Their father was the famous Nachshon Ben Aminadav."
http://www.shemayisrael.com/shavous/triumph.htm

Various Rabbi seem to query whether the identification of the "other redeemer" should be taken as the name Tov or as Hebrew idiom "so and so", so not to bring shame on that one's family (?)

The Me’am Lo’ez has Boaz saying “This field is part of a larger one left by their father to be divided among Elimelech, Tov, and Salmon; and it is unfitting for a stranger to intrude.”
http://www.betemunah.org/Ruth%2043-4.htm

Boaz was Salmon's son, so if the other kin if identified with Tov, would make Boaz Tov's nephew. However, if the closer kin is Tov, the brother of Elimelech, it seems he wasn't big on obeying the Law. Guess that is why there is disagreement among the Rabbi regarding who the other kin was.

To date the best I've found were comments by various Rabbi, that have Boaz & the "other redeemer" as cousins of Elimelech. Which accounts why they weren't obligated to an act of yibbum (levirate marriage). In the same regard, various Rabbi have suggested that the "other redeemer" was either, an uncle of Boaz who was not the brother of Elimelech, a cousin of Boaz or an elder brother of Boaz(?)

It seems that a different conclusion about the "other redeemer" arises depending on what text is used. Apparently, the Septuagint version puts a query on the kinship "If you are next of kin, take the privilege of a kinsman;"
http://www.betemunah.org/Ruth%2043-4.htm

I read somewhere that Boaz himself queries his own kinship at Ruth 3:12. "And it shall be so, if I am a near kinsman, But if I am kin there is a kinsman closer than I". I don't know if that is a valid but it does seem close to Rashi's comment.

I've enjoyed examining Ruth. Do you have any info that might shed greater light on what seems a difference of opinion among the Rabbi?

Rashi: lest I mar my heritage my offspring, like (Ps. 127:3): “Behold the heritage of the Lord is sons,” to give my offspring a stigma, as it is said (Deut. 23: 4): “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord,” but he erred by [not interpreting it as] “an Ammonite but not an Ammonitess.”Somewhere in my archives I have a discussion as to whether or not Ruth was a Moabite by race. This Rabbi reasons from the Law that her bloodline had to be from Abraham. If I recall correctly, he refutes Rashi and argues that the curse on Moab & Ammon applies to man, woman and child.

In a Christian article, the preference is to have Ruth as a Moabite, as it is claimed that Ruth is a symbol of the Law drawing outsiders towards God's people.

The Targum of Ruth seems to conflict with Rashi's opinion "...I cannot redeem it; because I have a wife, I am not permitted to take another one in addition to her, lest the result be quarrel in my home, and I will be destroying my own possession. You redeem it, since you have no wife; for I am unable to do so."

Targum of Ruth (3:11) "it is known to all who sit at the gate, the Great Sanhedrin, of my people, that you are a righteous woman and have the strength to bear the yoke of the commandments of the Lord."but this is not the biblical account and it doesn't say that this is why Boaz married her and why God blessed the marriage.Rashi's interpretation is not the scriptural account and yet you appeal to him (?)

There is a lot the scriptures don't say explicity, but there is also a lot they say implicity. Ruth 2:10-12 supports the traditional description of her as being righteous. The tradition is that God blessed both Boaz and Ruth because they obeyed the Law, the events of Ruth 4:1-12 demonstrate this - particularly the blessings of the people regarding the redemption and marriage.

We only know she was a Moabite's daughter. Which one is not stated. Her geneology is not recorded.but mentioning Ruth means she is known -- as Moabitess - and Moab is known as being a son of Lot.

the intention of the daughters of Lot maybe even was good, Genesis 19:31Indeed Lot's daughters motivation is generally accepted as being good but their actions (getting Lot drunk, and so, not allowing Lot to have free will in the matter) as very bad; and consequently their offspring became cursed by God.

same kind of intention to be found with RuthThere are several differences. She didn't compromise Boaz as Lot's daughter had with Lot ie: She didn't get Boaz drunk. Nor did she entrap him. Instead Ruth negotiated with Boaz regarding a righteous outcome, and ultimately God blessed them.

The significance of Matthew mentioning Tamar, Rahab and Ruth (and only these three women) in his geneology is that they had been idol worshippers who forsook their own people to follow the Lord. There is a message in that!idol-worshippers?According to the commentators, as Cannanites or Moabite they would have been raised that way. Some suggest that they were of the same bloodline as Abraham but resident in a foreign land and would have been inflenced by the customs of the locals, as so often happens when people depart from God and his people. Imu, all commentators suggest that they turned from these practices and drew to God's people and so were blessed.

Tamar is said to be a daughter of Shem.From Jasher 45:23 so it would seem. “And in those days Judah, went to the house of Shem and took Tamar the daughter of Elam, the son of Shem, for a wife for his first born, Er.”

The Messiah's line is traced through Shem's son Arpachahad. If Tamar's line is through Elam, we find that like Moab and Ammon, Elam's descendants become accursed by God because they opposed God's people (Jer 49:37)

Rabbi Moshe Reiss says "Several ancient traditions suggest Tamar was not a Canaanite but an Aramean; and thus she is righteous as compared to Judah who married a Canaanite (Jubilees 41:1; Testament of Judah 10:1)."
http://www.moshereiss.org/articles/24_tamar.htm

If Tamar was an Aramean that traces her to Shem's last son Aram. It is interesting that the Aramean kingdoms are depicted in scripture as opposers of God's people (1 Sam 14:47; Isa 7:8 etc).

Best I can tell we don't have a geneology of Tamar in scripture. At Genesis 38:2 Judah took a Cannanite as wife, and because "Judah had left his people", the presumption is he chose a local woman as wife for his firstborn. Admitedly, Cannanite in the commentaries seems to be used as a generalisation, like being European. From Genesis 14, I get the impression that tribes of Elam lived in Cannanite territory or at least were aligned with the Cannanites. So if her linage is traced to Shem, basically all we know is that she was a semite. Which imu, only tells us that within segments of the Arpachahad line, there was generally no cross breeding with the non-shem, other branches of Noah's sons (?)

[sylvius]

Rashi's interpretation is not the scriptural account and yet you appeal to him (?)

no you was the one to say:
]The biblical account is she was a righteous woman and that is why Boaz married her and why God blessed the marriage. The reason she is included in Jesus' geneology is that she was exceptionally righteous!
not me.



Indeed Lot's daughters motivation is generally accepted as being good but their actions (getting Lot drunk, and so, not allowing Lot to have free will in the matter) as very bad; and consequently their offspring became cursed by God.
i thought it was because of they had themselves made pregnant by their own father.
The wine was just a means.
Genesis 19:36. And Lot's two daughters conceived from their father.
Rashi: Although a woman does not conceive from the first intercourse, these controlled themselves and took out their maiden-hoods and conceived from the first intercourse. — [from Gen. Rabbah 51:9]


There are several differences. She didn't compromise Boaz as Lot's daughter had with Lot ie: She didn't get Boaz drunk. Nor did she entrap him. Instead Ruth negotiated with Boaz regarding a righteous outcome, and ultimately God blessed them.
she dived into bed with him.

"threshing-floor"has a deeper meaning.

it is also in NT in the mouth of John the Baptist, Matthew 4:12 (and also in Luke).

The threshing-floor is on "the way" of bread -- sowing- reaping-threshing- grinding-kneeding-baking.

Hey and the story plays in Betlehem - Beit-Lechem - house of bread.

it is traditionally read at pentecost - at the end of the counting of the omer., the 7 weeks from passover to pentecost. (omer is grain-measure).



Tamar means date(palm). That she is a daughter of Shem (= name) might be an indication that her name is of decisive importance, I think,
the date is the seventh fruit, belonging to the seventh day (after Deuteronomy 8:8 ("d'vash"-= honey , is produced from the date)
Greek for date is phoenix; also the name of the mythological bird that rejuvenates every millennium.

The names of the twin-brothers that were born are also meaningfull.

[apostoli]

she dived into bed with him.Or Boaz jumped to the foot of the bed where Ruth stayed the night. But scripture doesn't say either happened.

In an earlier post you quoted Rashi "his evil inclination was contending with him, 'You are single, and she is single; be intimate with her'; so he swore that he would be intimate with her only in marriage."

[sylvius]

"his evil inclination was contending with him."

he desired her badly.


"bread" is about the state of marriage, Genesis 39:6

the threshing-floor is a place where the bread is not yet bread.

yet the blessing over the bread says: "Blessed are you Lord our God king of the universe who brings forth bread from the earth"--

this is also what NT is about.

Mark14:22,
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body."

and this again has to do with the number 153 in the Gospel of John.

"not yet" -- also in Matthew 1:18

the word "betrothed" is a wordplay with "dough"-- dough also stage on "the way of bread".

Hebrew "erusim"=betrothal; root "aras"; ("alef-resh-samech") -- written with "ayin" inastead of "alef" it means "to mix dough" -

[apostoli]

he desired her badly.

"bread" is about the state of marriage, Genesis 39:6

the threshing-floor is a place where the bread is not yet bread.You've lost me on your bread analogy to Ruth/Boaz hanging out in the winnowing shed.

The threshing floor is where the wheat is separated from the chaff (ie: the winnowing mentioned at Ruth 3:2). If you need to spiritualise the text, Boaz is proved to be wheat in acknowleding his duty under the Law (Ruth 3:11). It is that simple.

Nowhere in the text does it suggest that he lusted after Ruth, that "he desired her badly". However, he did admire her hard work and loyalty to Naomi. Qualities he would value in a potential wife. (cp. Ruth 2:11-12), particularly vs12 where Boaz calls on God to bless Ruth.

[sylvius]

You've lost me on your bread analogy to Ruth/Boaz hanging out in the winnowing shed.

The threshing floor is where the wheat is separated from the chaff (ie: the winnowing mentioned at Ruth 3:2). If you need to spiritualise the text, Boaz is proved to be wheat in acknowleding his duty under the Law (Ruth 3:11). It is that simple.

Nowhere in the text does it suggest that he lusted after Ruth, that "he desired her badly". However, he did admire her hard work and loyalty to Naomi. Qualities he would value in a potential wife. (cp. Ruth 2:11-12), particularly vs12 where Boaz calls on God to bless Ruth.

it still has a deeper meaning I think.

threshing-floor is Hebrew "goren" -- gematria 253, which is triangular 22.
(22 being the number of letters in Hebrew alphabet - a number that as such plays a certain role in Torah)

it is written as "garon'= throat.

the throat is so to speak the threshing floor of the word.

the word to be spoken out must pass the throat.

throat-sound, "geronit", par excellence is the letter "ayin" --in modern Ivrit an open sound like "alef" , but original it must have sounded like the clearing of the trhoat.
to be heard stilll in the names Gaza (written "ayin -zayin-hey") and Gomorrah (written "ayin-mem-resh-hey"), preserved in LXX. (by rendering it with Greek letter "gamma"').

But every word must pass through the throat,
every word becoming flesh, so to speak.

[apostoli]

it still has a deeper meaning I think.

threshing-floor is Hebrew "goren" -- gematria 253, which is triangular 22.
(22 being the number of letters in Hebrew alphabet - a number that as such plays a certain role in Torah)

it is written as "garon'= throat. the throat is so to speak the threshing floor of the word. the word to be spoken out must pass the throat. throat-sound, "geronit", par excellence is the letter "ayin" --in modern Ivrit an open sound like "alef" , but original it must have sounded like the clearing of the trhoat. to be heard stilll in the names Gaza (written "ayin -zayin-hey") and Gomorrah (written "ayin-mem-resh-hey"), preserved in LXX. (by rendering it with Greek letter "gamma"'). But every word must pass through the throat, every word becoming flesh, so to speak.I'd suggest that the mind (reason) is the theshing floor of the word. The word may not only be spoken, it may also be written. And it takes on substance when it is communicated and seen at work. eg: Boaz acknowledging his responsibilty under the law, and from doing so he and Ruth are rewarded.

[sylvius]

I'd suggest that the mind (reason) is the theshing floor of the word. The word may not only be spoken, it may also be written.
yes it is spiritual

[apostoli]

yes it is spiritualBut also tangible, else the ultimate Messiah did not come to exist as prophecy (the Word) promised.

[sylvius]

But also tangible, else the ultimate Messiah did not come to exist as prophecy (the Word) promised.

Matthew 3:11-12
I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire.
His winnowing fan is in his hand. He will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

[apostoli]

Hello sylvius,
Matthew 3:11-12
I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire.
His winnowing fan is in his hand. He will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." Thankyou!!! A definitive scripture in the context of the book of Ruth. Jesus did not come to replace the Law but fulfill it !

[sylvius]

Hello sylvius,
Thankyou!!! A definitive scripture in the context of the book of Ruth. Jesus did not come to replace the Law but fulfill it !


it was about "threshing -floor" , Hebrew "goren", related to "throat" , Hebrew "garon" .

the threshing-floor being a stage on the way of bread.

sowing - reaping - winnowing- grinding- kneeding - baking

remember parable of the sower:

Mark 4:14,
The sower sows the word.

[apostoli]

Hellow sylvius,

it was about "threshing -floor" , Hebrew "goren", related to "throat" , Hebrew "garon" . the threshing-floor being a stage on the way of bread. sowing - reaping - winnowing- grinding- kneeding - baking. remember parable of the sower:
Mark 4:14, The sower sows the word. I feel you are mixing the metaphors.

I see the threshing floor in the context of judgement eg: John 4:24, 8:24. Jesus as the "bread of life" (John 6:48) came fully constituted (John 6:35).

I acknowledge Mark 3:14-20 gives a parable of peoples ability to accept the seed of belief and other scriptures refer to the reaping and winnowing but I don't understand what you are trying to convey by the grinding, kneading and baking.

Is your reference to "throat" an indicator that you hold that only the spoken word has value?

[sylvius]

I don't understand what you are trying to convey by the grinding, kneading and baking.

donkey is Hebrew "chamor";

the donkey is the one to carry the flour (the grain) from the threshing-floor to the bakery.

That's maybe why Zechariah 9:9 -- he is there already before the stage of dough -- the mixing of flour with water; dough which is copmpared to the state of betrothal. (and bread to the state of marriage)

donkey-burdon "chomer" , a grain-measure.

one "chomer" = hundred "omer" ( which might explain the parable of the sower.)

"omer" = sheaf of corn.
sheaf = bundle of ears.
ear of corn, Hebrew "shibbolet", famous from Judges 12:6
and also from Mark 2:23.




Is your reference to "throat" an indicator that you hold that only the spoken word has value?

John1:14 "and the word became flesh" -- the word from the beginning, etc. -- it is a word that can be spoken out; it is human; man is made according to the word, with lungs, throat, tonghe, teeth, lips, etc.

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

First of all: any translation after the King James is garbage. Secondly the words "was made" are not the same as the word "became". Third: The Word is not YHVH and it is not the secret name of God either. Fourth: Jesus Christ is not YHVH's Son. Fifth: it does not say that "The Word was born from a virgin and was made flesh" now does it. Sixth: The Word that is spoken of here is Elohim, Hebrew word which became "God" and it is The Word and The Word is Elohim, "God".

Man has already screwed themselves up by false beliefs and teachings about the Old Testament and further confused themselves with the New Testament. They now have a preconcieved notion that the Jeusses born in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all the same one and they are not. The cause of this confusion is the order that the four gospels were assembled in. It is wrong and John should have been first so no one would have had a preconceived notion about "Jesus Christ". man was supposed to read the words, "IN THE beginning was The Word" and go immediately back to Genesis 1:1 and see what The Word was and then they would see that it is "and Elohim said, Elohim saw it was good and it was so."

Then if Luke was the next book which it should have been, man would have seen a whole different Jesus Christ than they had just read about. Then after that Matthew would be see as a whole other Jesus Christ too and Mark. Silly Septuagint...to put Matthew first because it spoke of the "son of David" they believed to be Christ.

"Howbiet the Scribes and Pharisees think that Christ be the son of David "? The answer is "He couldn't be", but that would have made them wrong now wouldn't it? So they remained silent and huffed off convicted of The Truth they could not face; that maybe they weren't as wise and knowledgeable about the scriptures as they thought.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

"See this building, a graven image in all of its glory, glamor craftsmanship! Behold! As the stones are thrown down one upon another!" Jesus Christ 2009

[Christa]

this is something I have heard even from Roman Catholic theologists (who went through seminary). The real meaning of the gospel is not something that can be derived by reading it as a mere history book. One must coincide with it and read spiritually as well as literally, otherwise, it's just another book.


:read::idea:

[Heterodoxus]

John 1:14 doesn't read "and God became flesh"

but: "and the word became flesh"Concerning JN 1:14-16, I offer the following in the light of JN 1:3-4 and a little Greek 101: the Greek word translated into the English word "him" in JN 1:3-4 (ΑΥΤΟΥ [αὐτοῦ in minuscule]) is from the Greek root ΑΥΤΟΣ (αὐτός) which can be correctly rendered, inter alia, as him, her, or it depending, of course, on one's theological POV.

Now, substituting it for "he" or "him" in JN 1:3-4, 14a,c, and 15-16, and substituting of which instead of reading "of whom" in JN 1:15, say those verses aloud and see how this alternate yet correct reading sounds to you.

Is it possible that "the Word" in JN 1:1,14 doesn't refer to a human-faced person, but to a gospel-type message, or a divine-like expression, of principles of godliness and goodness that all believers in "God" might accept and emulate?

Consult your Hellenic lexica before throwing stones, please!
:eek:

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

No it is not possible. What is written should be read and just seen without metaphors or any rationalizations. IN THE beginning was The Word and The Word was with God and The Word was God. Simple "God" is The Word that was made flesh; meaning "God" Himself came in the person of His own Son as Jesus Christ and dwelt among men. The Word that spoke forth Creation, Elohim.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ tht the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

"Oh you're missing the God...missing the God...missing the God that came as the flesh of Jesus Christ!"

[Christa]

What is written should be read and just seen without metaphors or any rationalizations.
"Oh you're missing the God...missing the God...missing the God that came as the flesh of Jesus Christ!"


More of your same old nonsense yet again.

:pray:

[Christa]

IN THE beginning was The Word and The Word was with God and The Word was God. Simple "God" is The Word that was made flesh; meaning "God" Himself came in the person of His own Son as Jesus Christ and dwelt among men.

Christians don't all agree on this. Can you show me were it says that in the bible? Simply taking something for granted is not how the bible works.

:pray:

[Heterodoxus]

Greetings,

No it is not possible. What is written should be read and just seen without metaphors or any rationalizations. IN THE beginning was The Word and The Word was with God and The Word was God. Simple "God" is The Word that was made flesh; meaning "God" Himself came in the person of His own Son as Jesus Christ and dwelt among men.

Yes, that the usual spin. However, I'm drawing from Greek NTs and several reliable lexicons and you, apparently, from churchy rhetoric.

Well, OK, how about this paraphrase (mine) of JN 1:1-5:

1-2: When all time and things began, there was a divine-like Word of godliness and goodness that became an expression synonymous to the word God.
3: All of Man’s progress in life is determined and accomplished by that Word; without it, no progress is made.
4-5:Through it came the meaning and purpose of life that gives us spiritual insight, and that beacon-like spiritual insight shines brightly in the obscuring dimness of life, but the darkness cannot overpower it.
Is there anyone on this thread who might offer a non-dogmatic review of either the alternate readings proffered earlier or my paraphrase?

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

Oh man, that is very interesting, but even more far fetched than the translations in the Living Bible. You are simply trying to put man's own will into what "God" simply Created by SPEAKING as Elohim...uh hum!

It is not hard to see what is just presented as is in the bible. Man just wants to look at the book of John as it is some kind of summary to the first three books and it is not. The reason that Christians as so christa mentioned will not agree with what I have been shown to present man that is written in the King James Bible. When man reads John they automatically think that Jesus is The Word and "God" created through Him and this is not true at all and is a blasphemous lie! This is because they have delusioned themselves because they assembled the gospels wrong and it is their own fault that they believe a lie!

IN THE beginning is IN THE beginning. Both Old and New Testaments. Man should really kick themselves in the butt for being so asinine. As written both Testaments could be read simultaneously for the first 4 verses. Man has already thought they went back to the beginning of the Old and New Testament by throwing the New in with the Old. They did this before they knew The Truth about the Old Testament. Now there is guidelines, statures, conduct and by laws by which you can teach the bible and they don't even have the authority by "God" or "Jesus Christ" to speak one word and try to. All that man has been doing is spreading a rumor started by men 8,000 years ago that has been passed on and on without question, but man does not realized they they have changed the rumor more and more turning it into a lie.

The King James Bible has a 4.3 grade and UNDERSTANDING level. Now you tell me that man thought that they had that right or actually gave up on it and though they could do better for what they believed it to mean. I have heard so many people say, "I can't understand the King James with all the thees and thous." SO what does man do; turn it into a 12th grade reading level book all full of the rationalizations, theories and stories about what they have believed it to mean all these years and actually have committed blasphemy against the Word of God by changing the meaning of the words written that were intended to simply be seen by a 5th grader.

There is nothing man calls "spiritual" that is form "God" or "Jesus Christ". This inner self spiritual journey is a journey into hell. All thoughts of the imaginations of man's hearts are controlled by the devil, because man allows it thinking it is "God" or even "Jesus Christ" as do Paulutians or Nicolations as properly would be. Christian? I do not even know where the word began being used and I know it is not in the New Testament anywhere either.

Christian: follower of Christ. Only one problem with that; there were many Christs that have come and gone and many were called "Jesus". So which "Christ" do you Christians follow, because I know that Paul and Nicolas did not have the right one at all. The Right Christ is finally come, but the Right "God" came as His flesh first so He could. The rest of the "Jesuses"? Impostors, frauds, sons of men even those from virgins. Man well underestimates the power and determination of the devil. Man thinks that Jesus' death on the cross overcame the devil and defeated him once and for all. HA HA HA! All that did was give the devil to have himself a sacrifice and then do the same thing as an antichrist and confuse man with doctrine from two more at least.

I do not follow Christ, I walk with Jesus Christ my Brother and We follow Our Father that is "God" , Elohim. We know that the enemy is YeHeVeH or "the LORD" in the Old Testament. We know that he is the light that is darkness. We know that he is sitting on the congregations of the north, south, east and west NOW. We know that Elohim has been watching him rule over this earth and deceive man into believing he is "God" or now even "Jesus"; hoping that one day someone would start at IN THE beginning and see it as a fifth grader would and see "God" and "the LORD God" are Sam and Susan. We know that he wants to try to fulfill his end time prophecies of destruction of all nations. We know We come to stop him.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God as The Word was made flesh to become
Reverend Carlton