– ‘the garment’ : about ‘Adam’ – ‘your mother’ : about ‘Eve’ – ‘the ceasing’ : recompence [Passover could be our date] [2024-02feb.09] |
| … in these type matters you know that we tread very carefully ; at the time of writing ‘Christ in the Garden (-see page) also the line ‘why have you abandoned me’ came to mind , yet in spite of looking at it – and the strangeness of being ‘said in Hebrew’ – it refused to make Sense , while now also óther aspects that have happened there do not , where in fact these aspects appear to form a coherent theme … please see the conclusion of ‘the themes of the cross’ (here) |
(not ‘of life’ as some tell) |
the ‘garment divided by lots’
… there is so much wrong with this KJV passage —
in John shows the most extensive version (two lines) in which “the soldiers that
crucified Christ took his garment and wanted to cut it into four parts ; but for some
reason they refrained from dividing it up and instead decided to go cast lots for it ,
in order that ‘the scripture might be fulfilled’ , saying “they divided my garment by
having cast lots for it” — yet the ‘scripture’ is but from a “Psalm” (22) !
the garment
… though it all sounds plausible ‘that they took his garment from him’ the question
is ‘what was the réal theme of this garment’ ? for it must have been ‘an attribute’ ,
and because of the context of “Christ carrying guilt” it is not logical that ‘a garment’
was taken from Him – but that they dressed Him in one – as ‘mockery’ , perhaps
even as greater mockery as when they would have stripped him until a loincloth ;
alternatively ,
this garment could have been His’ , but they “did something with it” and re-dressed
him with this now altered garment
the ‘blood-stained garment of Adam’ [Is.14]
… this is a serious clue — the charge against Adam is “having slain our Originals”
which is depicted in “his garment drained with their blood” ,
so that in this interpretation Christ “bore the transgression OF that slaying” by
Adam through wearing the Attribute of it — but ofcourse NOT “for Adam himself” :
point is ,
that in all prophets no ‘garment’ is more Negative as this one ; while the expression
of ‘casting lots’ is said about ‘the demons casting lots about our Originals’ ! as
deciding which one of them will be tortured next to steal the pretty aspects from …
| the theme “garment of blood” also shows in the Joseph story where the other sons need an explanation for his disappearance and show ‘the stained garment’ to Jacob ; if anything it also links this attribute to ‘innocent ones’ or better to the concept of “a not guilty party being killed” |
|
the crown put on , the sign put on : the garment put on (?)
… when the first two were mockery then why not ‘this garment’ also ? in fact it would
disrupt the type mockery when ‘the garment’ would have been remóved .. no ?
remember – the sign did NOT write “king of the jews” because the Pharisees wére
the jews that crucified him , but “of the Judahites” (the southern kingdom) by which
was meant “God’s people” ofcourse ; but as a failed sacrifice for them ; see next :
(did) the Pharisees want their master (Adam) freed (?)
.. they were not stupid and knew the (original-) scroll — including the Is.14 theme ! ,
and hence they must have had a most nefarious intent with this ‘garment’ ;
now , ofcourse they KNEW what Christ came to do , but they were so cocky about
their own corruptions in the prophets (-and decided to corrupt the whole NT with a
doubled fury !) that they had a good chance that His sacrifice ‘was for nothing’ —
that may sound Insane , yet at that point in Time it was true !
because they would make sure that ‘the sons’ (see below) would never understand
and restore the scroll !
with thát prospect in mind , their master Adam would forever be innocent of the very
attribute of his crime – that garment – had been placed upon Christ to carry it !
the text as the two lines itself :
… now that we have a concept to work with we need to see what the text has said ,
however we have one major problem still : we would need ‘a blood-stained garment’
but “from where” did the Pharisees make to come that blood ? from whom ?
‘(see) your mother’ (about Eve .. ?)
… this rather bizarre line (-only showing in John) starts to make Sense as well now :
in lines 25-27 He allegedly says to John “behold , your mother” and to Mary “behold
your son” so that the disciple took her to his home — where was Joseph then ? —
but instead , after ‘Adam’ we have a good chance this was about ‘Eve’ !
so that in 25 “the disciples stand near the cross” ,
and in 26 “Jesus=the disciples saw his=our mother (Eve)” ! as the expression so
used in prophets writing “your + mother + Eve” ;
where it is not impossible that she appeared since the disciples also saw our male
and female Original flanking Him (-during the alleged ‘transfiguration’ event) ;
Eve + ‘her sons’ (-represented by Christ)
… also this is a major indication that the female figure was ‘Eve’ —
we saw in prophets that she will hear the sons about the restored scroll (-see pages)
and “will cry oceans of tears about the crimes that Adam has done” – making it very
likely that the phrase ‘sons’ here was about ‘the sons of Ishral’ ;
but ofcourse we do not know yet what can have been said by Him abóut her or to her
which will prove to be very difficult in reconstructing these three lines :
(25)
[=now] – beside – the – cross of – [..] Jesus – (are) standing – his – mother=disciples ,
b
and=when – him=our – mother – mary=Eve – sister=appears (?) – (to-) the=him / them ,
c
the=and – [+she] cleophas=weeps (?) (klôpa=klaiô !! b/c was weird !) – ………………..
but what is next … ?
[related to our – as it looks now – Passover date ? :]
… both events could support a Passover (Firstfruits) time because of the ‘promise’ ,
combined with the ending of the ‘recompence theme’ — see below ;
while in this context the Daniel 9:27 line “in the midst of the (70th-) week the gift
as the sacrifice [=Passover] will cease” meaning that “the 2000 years of grace
will have ended – and the Trib begins” , also suggests a start at Passover ;
the 70th week began at Trumpets with the restoring of the scroll and (officially) ends
3,5 years later — though in our time count it took longer — but the extra “six months”
could depict a ‘six months from Trumpets — until Passover” …
the ‘abandoned’ line
| … admittedly the most difficult one — first : there is no reason for Esau to NOT have ‘translated’ these words (-even in his own way ofcourse) ; neither is it true “that Christ spoke Aramaic” : Aramaic had come into the land by the Samaritan and Esau clan , and even some slight language-mixture may have come into existence Christ would never ‘speak Aramaic’ – like the scroll doesn’t ; therefore also here Esau concealed something by giving a Greek ‘explanation’ of ‘a Hebrew (Aramaic) phrase’ |
|
the alleged ‘why + you have forsaken + me’
… showing in Mt.27:46 and Mk.15:34 the context is wrong :
we saw (-in the ‘Christ in the Garden’ page) concerning the recompence theme
that He ofcourse knéw what he would be doing on earth , having full knowledge
of the trial of “laying down his inner being” – and see Hebrews ‘9-12’ page ,
so that asking ‘why’ just does not make Sense , included the used Verb —
the above shown (-shebaq) only appears 5x , in the (Aramaic) Daniel and Ezra ,
as a phrase transliterated (-sabachthani) , alternatively but unlikely from (-azab) ,
where the whole line is suspect :
the official Eli Eli lama sabachtani ,
said ‘of “El” as ‘God’ but in the scroll the proper phrase is “alei” (elohim) ,
then the (-lama) , said as “from (le)” as ‘to, for, etc’ and (mah) [me] “why, what” ,
however that is (-ol) [al] because L+ is always the negation “no” (la) ;
so that the phonetical L + L-M + SH-B (Q) can be the roots that Esau has seen ;
and what to make of those — while keeping ‘the recompence’ in mind .. ?
[where an (éli) may also be a disguised verb as (eie) “to be, to become”]
SH-B ‘return’ and SH-B-TH ‘cease’
.. ofcourse we’re biased but those are the most frequently used -SHB roots ;
however , though an “I am returning + to you” (to-you I-am-returning) sounds
credible it should perhaps follow áfter “it is finished” (Jn.19:30) while a phrase
like this is not much different from “in your hands I give my spirit” (23:46) ;
instead , ‘some conclusion of His work must have been expressed here’ ,
for example
an “I have returned + your people + unto you”
as (to-you (La=oL) people-of-you (M=OM) I-have-returned (SHBq=SHb) ,
which is a very meaningful statement !
however , the subject “people” here must refer to “our Originals” (-set free)
followed by the Greek (repetitive) sub-line that “”translated”” the Aramaic line
yet should be explaining THIS line about ‘the people’ :
perhaps the “… why + hast thou forsaken + me ?”
was a “why=after – you=they (had) left (1459) – me=Eden (me=eden)” ?
while this line may have been connected to ‘the garment’ theme
[note :
another option could be an ‘I-have-ceased (to be)’ as per the recompence
theme perhaps as “I have ceased to be a deity (El) unto you” — but since
the recompence theme shows at the end (the ‘I thirst’) we cannot maintain
a ‘to cease’ root here]
is it important to know ?
… we are not “tinkering with texts like one could do with high-voltage”
but genuinely try to understand what He really said in the context of this
for us so important ‘recompence theme’ right now ;
we know you agree , Sir , and even more that you want us to find it
[added:] the ‘inscription’
| … pondering the above , there had to be another aspect apart from ‘the garment’ that would confirm the intent of the Pharisees [jews] to link Him to their master Adam , and the event of the inscription must support this — now , the custom of “identifying the crime of convicted people to the public” appears to have been a common practice |
|
so we are forced to maintain the line having “king of the Judeans” [not: ‘jews’]
as the one line about this event in Matthew , Mark and Luke ; however the two
additional lines in John can help us out here :
(21-22)
“Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews;
but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.”
… this is a double trap ! :
it is suggested here “that the priests themselves as jews were insulted by the sign
and wanted to have the sign changed in the form of ‘Christ only having cláimed to
be king of the Jews” (-hence Esau’s weird addition “[chief priests-] of the Jews”) ,
but the point is that the sign never said ‘jews’ but ‘Judahites’ (or ‘Judaeans’) —
so that here ,
the reasoning of these (corrupted-) two lines is wrong :
the Pharisees themsélves had conjured up the false accusation that Christ had
called himself “king (-of the jews/Judahites)” in order to get the support from the
Roman empire that would convict any political threat towards the empire ,
so that they could hardly argue now “well but he only cláimed to be that king” for
that would directly undermine their own entire fabricated case against Him !
Esau saw this problem and invented the ‘Jews’ factor here
[which strongly suggests that the ‘king of the [=Judahites] ‘ was original !] ,
but instead of simply deléting these lines (as in the other gospels) he left us this :
they wanted another title altogether as inscription – pushing things further
the inscription
so far , all the themes are congruent :
the ‘garment’ , ‘Eve’ and the ‘recompence’ theme — and now ‘the inscription’ :
though we cannot maintain now that the word itself ‘Adam’ did appear upon it ,
in the discussion abóut the inscription did appear the word ‘Adam’ because
of the very buildup of both additional lines in John :
just as “king of the jews/Judahites” is a form of ‘impersonating’ we now also need
the by the Jews proposed change to be one ; while the colour that we look for is
of “something that Christ had said about Adam as a phrase which they had hated”
because it was a THREAT to them that they searched to disarm once and for all :
suggesting here 1Cor.15:45 ,
as “write – not : [..] king of – the – Judahites ;
b
but – that – [+he] said of – the=himself : [that of-himself he-said]
c
I (am) – (the-) king=final (‘last, ultimate’) (basileus=eschatos) – jews=Adam (iDA=ADm)“
[‘jews’ -ioudaios we shortened]
note : in corrupt NT ánd Greek syntax adjective is in 40% of cases preceding the subject]
how does that sound please ?
they wanted to get rid of the whole dangerous attribute ‘second Adam’ so that
it would ‘die’ with Him — per their inscription bearing the réason for his death ;
and though ofcourse they knew that He’d resurrect again , in their opinion that
would become ‘in vain’ (‘invalid’) because they were sure that the sons would
NEVER rise up since they themselves did an outstanding job of corrupting the
scroll — so that “the second Adam died” would remain forever valid !
for Christ this was different :
since he knéw that he would rise and that Eden would be restored – so that the
same quote would not ‘die with him’ but instead remain true forever
Pilate ofcourse rejected their request ,
but not because he rejected the (by Esau corrupted-) ‘allegation of the Jews’
but because he wanted to keep the political reason intact — instead of being
dragged into the internal quibblings about a matter of a foreign religion
| … very carefully we also need to look at this theme — the point is not ‘if He could not have been thirsty’ but whether a scene like that has been recorded – or not ; considered the previous themes and combined with the strange John intro most likely this scene was not about ‘thirst’ but about ‘the recompence’ which indeed appears to be the main closing theme |
|
the curious intro
… again John (19:28-30) has the most extensive version , opening the scene with
a referral ‘to scripture being fulfulled’ , where the scholarly world assumes that it
should fulfill Psalm 69 “they offer me sour wine for my thirst” — yet we already saw
at ‘the garment’ that ‘Psalms’ are not considered ‘scripture’ so this is also suspect :
(28)
“After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished,
that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.” ;
… here ,
the term ‘fulfilled’ (-teleioó) often shows in the ‘Hebrew’ chapters [-we do right now]
and is consistently linked to “the (eden-) Covenant” — however , the ‘fulfillment’ here
is linked to a completely unrelated ‘thirst theme’ making the line Invalid ;
the ‘sponge of + vinegar’
… therefore also this double phrase was originally something else —
(29)
“Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar,
and put [it] upon [+a reed of] hyssop, and put [it] to his mouth.” ,
… here ,
because we know that the recompence theme relates to ‘the tree of good & evil’
the invented phrase ‘(hyssop-) stalk’ (5301) is of interest for us , where Mk.15:36
uses the plain word “a reed” (2563) so that Esau may have seen “a tree” !
so that (the-) sponge=tree (spogON=dendrON , as shown , not as -spoggos) is
a realistic possibility , yet the + good & evil is more difficult :
perhaps phonetically ‘sour wine’ (-oxos) was ‘evil’ (-kakos) as gutteral idea ,
where he just deleted the required word “good” ; also note that “eating (the fruit)”
is a theme belonging to that tree , which Esau can have distorted as ‘drinking’ ;
the ‘place around + a hyssop (-stalk)’
… interestingly another phrase linked to ‘the recompence’ virtually shows here
as the ‘to place + around ‘ (peri + tithémi) [-which should have been epitithémi]
where -tithémi was also used in the phrase “lay down the soul” (-see pages) ;
turning ‘hyssop’ (-hussópos) the ‘soul’ (-psuché) candidate ;
first attempt :
… though line 28 is the only one that has Him ‘saying something’ (‘I thirst’) the
buildup may have been “28-29 confirm a theme after which He in 29 says the
phrase “Father in your hands….” — which however is not in John but Lk.23:46 :
(28)
“After this,
Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, [‘as the above themes !’]
[+and] that [+now] +
b
the scripture might be fulfilled +
c
(concerning-) (the-) saith=transgression (legó=anomia) of – I thirst=Adam (Dipsaó=aDm) ; +
or b #2 :
[+and] that [+now] the scripture would be fullfilled [this is better :]
c
(through-) (the-) saith=recompence – (unto-) I thirst=God (-himself) (dipSaO=theOS) ; +
… here ,
the first part “all things accomplished” makes Sense : because ‘all the themes
of the cross’ so far were about what He achieved :
– about “the Jacob souls” (!) (good & bad ones , per both other crucified men) [conclusion :]
– about “the garment” which was about ‘the crimes Adam did’
– about “the woman” that was Eve
– about “the abandonment” that was about our Originals returning ,
– and closing now “with the recompence unto God himself”
note :
trying in #2-b “and that now the covenant would be fulfilled …” isn’t good enough
for ‘the fulfilled covenant’ is ‘the restored Eden’ — where here the conditions for
that restoration are being fulfilled (-and foreshadowed) per the Hebrews chapter
explaining ‘that the conditions óf the covenant are in the scroll’ .. is it not ?
so that the buildup here can have been :
(28)
Christ , knowing that all the these=previous (!) had been accomplished ,
and that now the scripture (or covenant) would be fulfilled ,
through the recompence unto God himself , + [reasoning continues :]
(29)
[because of what happened at the tree of good and evil , [however 29 was phrased]
and that God required the laying down of the soul] , + [next : closing of reasoning :]
(30)
bowed his head and said : it is finished :
Father in your hands I commit my spirit ; [< from Lk.23:46]
and he passed away .
what do you think about this entire buildup please … ?
and do remember ‘the recompence’ these days is the final theme of the scroll ..
text attempt
hopefully ‘soon’ — needs more pondering
end of page
