Every Jew is Jesus: Retroactive Ontology.

[John D. Brey]

This is what the Lord says, Israel's king and redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last.
Isaiah 44:6.

I am the alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
Revelation 22:12.​

The Lord is the alef-tav את, the begging א, and the end ת. In Greek nomenclature he's the alpha and omega. In Hebrew he's the origin א hidden in the beginning ב. The beginning word in the Torah, which ironically is the Hebrew word "beginning," begins with the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet and ends with the last letter in the Hebrew alphabet. Consequently it has the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, the aleph א, hidden in the middle of the second and the last letters.

בר–א–שית

The first letter א, conceded by the sages to be the origin, is literally hidden in the beginning word of the Torah, which as fate would have it, is ironically, literally, the word "beginning." -----The aleph א, is thus not the beginning in the written text even though it’s conceded to be the origin by any sage worth his salt. The origin, the alef, is hidden in the belly of the letters beit ב and tav ת, which spell, "virgin daughter" (see essay Perpetual Virginity). The origin, the alef, is hidden in the "virgin daughter" of the beginning, the first daughter of creation, whom, were the scripture taken literally, and properly, would be the first human, the Adam.


John

 

[Muffled]

I believe I am getting aleph out of this.

 

[John D. Brey]

This is what the Lord says, Israel's king and redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last.
Isaiah 44:6.

I am the alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
Revelation 22:12.​

The Lord is the alef-tav את, the begging א, and the end ת. In Greek nomenclature he's the alpha and omega. In Hebrew he's the origin א hidden in the beginning ת. The beginning word in the Torah, which ironically is the Hebrew word "beginning," begins with the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet and ends with the last letter in the Hebrew alphabet. Consequently it has the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, the aleph א, hidden in the middle of the second and the last letters.

בר–א–שית

The first letter א, conceded by the sages to be the origin, is literally hidden in the beginning word of the Torah, which as fate would have it, is ironically, literally, the word "beginning." -----The aleph א, is thus not the beginning in the written text even though it’s conceded to be the origin by any sage worth his salt. The origin, the alef, is hidden in the belly of the letters beit ב and tav ת, which spell, "virgin daughter" (see essay Perpetual Virginity). The origin, the alef, is hidden in the "virgin daughter" of the beginning, the first daughter of creation, whom, were the scripture taken literally, and properly, would be the first human, the Adam.

Compounding the irony is the fact that once it's recognized that the first, the alef א, is hidden in the belly of the second, the "daughter" בת, it become equally apparent that the alef, the first, which is “origin,” is hidden in the belly of the beit, the second, which in the written scroll, begins the Torah, i.e., the beit, which isn’t “origin,” is nevertheless the “beginning.” The origin, the aleph, has two letters, one to its right and the other to its left, that with the alef in the middle spell "first" (origin, original):

ב–ראש–ית

The alef א, which is the first letter, is sandwiched between the two letters, reish ר and shin ש, which with the alef in the middle of them spell the Hebrew word "first" ראש.

As if that were not coincidental enough, once the word "first" ראש, in the belly of the Hebrew word for "beginning" בראשית (which happens to be the first word in the Torah), is separated from the other letters, the remaining letters spell the Hebrew word for "house" בית:

ב–ראש–ית

The first word in the Torah is the "house" hiding the origin, the builder, inside. The "first" is hidden (housed in) the belly of the word "beginning," which is the beginning word of the Torah.

How much more coincidental can anything get? . . .You had to ask.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I believe I am getting aleph out of this.

. . . Be careful. Feeding a toddler T-bone instead of milk can have detrimental effects not withstanding genuinely good intentions.



John

 

[PureX]

They asked Jesus if he was God, or if he believed that he was God because that's what he was being accused of by the high priests: proclaiming himself to be God. And his answer to them was, "you say that I am". Jesus never claimed to be God. And on many occasions he referred to God as something beyond, above, and apart from himself.

That being said, Jesus clearly believed himself to be an anointed representation of God's will, in human form. That's why he was referred to, and why he allowed himself to be referred to as the "son of God". In his culture, to be the son of a family patriarch was to be perceived as the representation of that patriarch's will. As the father was the head of his family clan, any interaction engaged in with the adult sons of that clan's leader were considered the equivalent in authority and obligation to interacting with the patriarch, himself. This was a foundational principal of that culture at that time. So Jesus was NOT claiming to be God, but to be an authoritative representation of God's mind/spirit/will, on Earth, in human form. And what he was teaching to the rest of us was that all humans are likewise 'sons and daughters of God', and could therefor become the fulfillment of God's mind/spirit/will in human form, on Earth. And further, he promised that if we would be willing to allow ourselves to be fulfilled in this divine, spiritual way, 'heaven and earth' would be healed and saved from itself, and become one, once again.

 

[Muffled]

. . . Be careful. Feeding a toddler T-bone instead of milk can have detrimental effects not withstanding genuinely good intentions.



John

I am reminded of a statement my brother made: "Statistics don't lie but statisticians do."

The fact remains in either alphabet Jesus is the beginning and the end.

 

[John D. Brey]

Compounding the irony is the fact that once it's recognized that the first, the alef א, is hidden in the belly of the second, the "daughter" בת, it become equally apparent that the alef, the first, which is “origin,” is hidden in the belly of the beit, the second, which in the written scroll, begins the Torah, i.e., the beit, which isn’t “origin,” is nevertheless the “beginning.” The origin, the aleph, has two letters, one to its right and the other to its left, that with the alef in the middle spell "first" (origin, original):

ב–ראש–ית

The alef א, which is the first letter, is sandwiched between the two letters, reish ר and shin ש, which with the alef in the middle of them spell the Hebrew word "first" ראש.

As if that were not coincidental enough, once the word "first" ראש, in the belly of the Hebrew word for "beginning" בראשית (which happens to be the first word in the Torah), is separated from the other letters, the remaining letters spell the Hebrew word for "house" בית:

ב–ראש–ית

The first word in the Torah is the "house" hiding the origin, the builder, inside. The "first" is hidden (housed in) the belly of the word "beginning," which is the beginning word of the Torah.

How much more coincidental can anything get? . . .You had to ask.

If the beginning word in the Torah, "beginning" (בראשית), condenses the word for "first" ראש into the letter those three consonants spell, the reish ר, then the beginning word in the Torah, i.e., the word "beginning," i.e., the "house" בית hiding the origin, ראש the "first” (ב–ראש–ית), spells out the Hebrew word "covenant":

ב–ר [ראש]–ית

The beginning word in the Torah, the word "beginning," breaks down multiple ways in order to imply that it’s the first "covenant" ברית, which is the first "daughter" בת, with the first letter, which is the symbol of "origin," first-ness ראש, the alef א, hidden in her belly (ב–ראש–ית).



John

 

[shunyadragon]

Without being egocentric on Judaism. Such an interpretation would lead to the conclusion all humans are Jesus.

 

[InChrist]

I think God has spoken plainly enough through the scriptures and revealed the identity of Jesus Christ without humans having to make vain attempts at hidden codes or counting letters, breaking down Hebrew words, searching for sequences, and arranging the text in various ways in order to find what amounts to questionable conclusions and subjective interpretations.

 

[John D. Brey]

I think God has spoken plainly enough through the scriptures and revealed the identity of Jesus Christ without humans having to make vain attempts at hidden codes or counting letters, breaking down Hebrew words, searching for sequences, and arranging the text in various ways in order to find what amounts to questionable conclusions and subjective interpretations.

. . . Which seems like a good excuse not to bother studying the Word of God in the original languages, or in a context other than your own.

Which is like the simpleton who proclaimed that if the King James English was good enough for Jesus to speak (in red letters no less) it was good enough for him.

God's revelation of his purpose and plan is progressive. It's not complete yet. Some of the things in this thread aim toward a greater revelation of God based on the progression of knowledge about his person and being. If you assume the revelation is plain, simple, and complete, then studying to show yourself approved as a workman who need not be ashamed is not something that concerns you.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Without being egocentric on Judaism. Such an interpretation would lead to the conclusion all humans are Jesus.

. . . I've not yet gotten to the interpretation that makes every Jew Jesus. First I have to scare off the looky loos.



John

 

[Muffled]

Without being egocentric on Judaism. Such an interpretation would lead to the conclusion all humans are Jesus.

I believe I have a beginning and an end but I am not the beginning and the end.

 

[Muffled]

. . . Which seems like a good excuse not to bother studying the Word of God in the original languages, or in a context other than your own.

Which is like the simpleton who proclaimed that if the King James English was good enough for Jesus to speak (in red letters no less) it was good enough for him.

God's revelation of his purpose and plan is progressive. It's not complete yet. Some of the things in this thread aim toward a greater revelation of God based on the progression of knowledge about his person and being. If you assume the revelation is plain, simple, and complete, then studying to show yourself approved as a workman who need not be ashamed is not something that concerns you.


John

I believe the argument wasn't that things shouldn't be studied but only that your views are way out in left field when what has already been revealed is solid.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe I have a beginning and an end but I am not the beginning and the end.

That's obvious, ah . . . unless one believes in the eternal soul in one form or another..

 

[John D. Brey]

I believe the argument wasn't that things shouldn't be studied but only that your views are way out in left field when what has already been revealed is solid.

. . . My views are way out in left field from the perspective of a slow-moving orthodoxy. It'll catch up some day. . . And then my views will look like they were, at worst, prematurely mature.


John

 

[Muffled]

. . . My views are way out in left field from the perspective of a slow-moving orthodoxy. It'll catch up some day. . . And then my views will look like they were, at worst, prematurely mature.


John

I believe that comes under the heading of wishful thinking.

 

[Muffled]

That's obvious, ah . . . unless one believes in the eternal soul in one form or another..

I believe after a million years we ought to have some sense of security.