Conversations with sylvius: Rashi, 666 in Genesis 1:31, etc.

[sylvius]

No it doesn't. That phrase was referring to Eve being made from Adam's rib. It says nothing about sex.

The text actually doesn't say "rib", at least not rib as a bone.

But "side", אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו , "achat mitsal'otav", one of his sides.

LXX has πλευρά "pleura", ἔλαβεν μίαν τῶν πλευρῶν αὐτοῦ

You'll find also in John 19:34
ἀλλ' εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ.

Ha! Now you changed our story.

The text does not say "had intercourse with" - it says "went unto" or "into"

The commentary says so, not the Bible text.

and that's where you might get the implication of sexual intercourse, but it is not a necessary implication.

Adam wasn't satisfied, so it was sex of nothing.

How could he with an ant?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

ok, i just smelled christian antismetism I got accustomed with on other discussion-forums.
Rashi is great scholar, you can learn a lot of him. He is more Christian (in the true sense) than Christianity.

Understood.

I know Rashi is well-respected, but I don't know if he was a "great scholar" or not. It seems like he was just transmitting a lot of tradition he learned along with his own opinions. He seems to be your primary source. Why is that? There are many rabbis you could choose to quote.

I once studied at a Roman Catholic university.

Oh - so you are trying to prove them wrong about their religion?

So every day you forget everything you previously concluded? After 35 years you've come to no firm conclusion about anything?

Right

So you don't even have a thesis after 35 years?

Your comments are always in bits and pieces. They don't make much sense without knowing the larger context that determines your interpretations.

it is a wordplay "sod" mystery, "yesod" foundation.

I should have noticed that. But still, it was just another evasive answer. You seem very interested in sharing your insights since you have been posting on internet forums for many years. And I've read a lot of your posts, but I still have no idea what you are really trying to get at. I don't know your thesis. I don't know the "Big Picture" of what you think it's all about.

That contradicts everything I've read about traditional Judaism. Specifically, it contradicts the 13 principles of faith put forth by Rambam

That's the way I do interpret/ understand the NT Messiah, who is present already in Tanach, present, but hidden.

So you believe that Jesus is Messiah?

I indeed was thinking of Matthew 25.

OK.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The text actually doesn't say "rib", at least not rib as a bone.

But "side", אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו , "achat mitsal'otav", one of his sides.

LXX has πλευρά "pleura", ἔλαβεν μίαν τῶν πλευρῶν αὐτοῦ

You'll find also in John 19:34
ἀλλ' εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ.

What do you think "one of his sides" means? He cut Adam in half?

The text does say rib (Gen 2:22):

וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם.

The word hatzela is a noun prefixed with the definite article ha. It means "the rib." The word can mean side, but it also can mean rib. And what's your point anyway? The text states that God took something from his side, and formed a women.

Ha! Now you changed our story.

The text does not say "had intercourse with" - it says "went unto" or "into"

The commentary says so, not the Bible text.

Which commentary? I looked at Yebamoth 63a and it doesn't say anything about sex, unless you choose to interpret it that way.

and that's where you might get the implication of sexual intercourse, but it is not a necessary implication.

Adam wasn't satisfied, so it was sex of nothing.

That's not correct. Adam wasn't satisfied because he didn't find a mate. Not because he had sex and didn't find a mate.

How could he with an ant?

Why would he do it with a cow?

[sylvius]

I know Rashi is well-respected

"well-respected" is not what makes him great.

but I don't know if he was a "great scholar" or not.

he was far more intellignet scholar than the so called church -fathers and the like

It seems like he was just transmitting a lot of tradition he learned along with his own opinions. He seems to be your primary source. Why is that? There are many rabbis you could choose to quote.

Rashi stresses the importance of the letter "hey" of "hashishi":

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi/true

the sixth day: Scripture added a “hey” on the sixth [day], at the completion of the Creation, to tell us that He stipulated with them, [“you were created] on the condition that Israel accept the Five Books of the Torah.” [The numerical value of the “hey” is five.] (Tanchuma Bereishith 1). Another explanation for “the sixth day” : They [the works of creation] were all suspended until the “sixth day,” referring to the sixth day of Sivan, which was prepared for the giving of the Torah (Shab. 88a). [The“hey” is the definite article, alluding to the well-known sixth day, the sixth day of Sivan, when the Torah was given (ad loc.).]

"Scripture added a “hey” " -- הוסיף ה'

In all my career of inventor of the number 666 in Genesis 1:31 there has been no one to support me except for Rashi.

Although Rashi doesn't say that the Name of God is hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" he lets you know that he knows it.

F.e. by his comment on Genesis 1:1, (translation is from chabad.org)

ברא א-להים: ולא אמר ברא ה'
God’s creation of the heavens and the earth: But it does not say “of the Lord’s creation of” (i.e., it should say “of the Lord God’s creation of” as below 2:4 “on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven”) for in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice, and that is the reason it is written:“on the day the Lord God made earth and heaven.”

Oh - so you are trying to prove them wrong about their religion?

No.
In fact my teacher of exegesis of the Old Testament and of biblical Hebrew, a priest, showed me "the other way" of reading the Bible, which is indicated by the number of 318 trained servants of Abraham with whom he gained victory over the four kings in favor of the five. (Genesis 14:14).
He wasn't allowed to go that way. He mentioned the book of Weinreb "Torah as blueprint of the universe".
By then I did find the number 666 as hidden in Genesis 1:31.
Which in fact is the stone rejected by the builders, the stone rolled upon the entrance (door) of Jesus' tomb, right at the end of the sixth day = beginning of Sabbat.
My teacher exegesis New Testament, with whom we did read Mark, didn't want to know nothing about those things.
And also not the other teachers. They just have no room for it, pre-occupied wiht their own scholarship.
Beat them?
Most of them did pass away.

So you don't even have a thesis after 35 years?

If I wouldn't have been a sinner I could have been Messiah.

Your comments are always in bits and pieces. They don't make much sense without knowing the larger context that determines your interpretations.

You rejected from the start (many years ago already) my great finding.

[sylvius]

What do you think "one of his sides" means? He cut Adam in half?

The text does say rib (Gen 2:22):

וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם.

The word hatzela is a noun prefixed with the definite article ha. It means "the rib." The word can mean side, but it also can mean rib.

because it usually is translated that way.
But the word "tsela" doens't occur in another place with the meanig of rib as a bone.

Exodus 25:12

And you shall cast four golden rings for it, and you shall place them upon its four corners, two rings on its one side, and two rings on its other side.

And what's your point anyway? The text states that God took something from his side, and formed a women.

No, text says:
and He took one of his sides, and He closed flesh in its place

Which commentary? I looked at Yebamoth 63a and it doesn't say anything about sex, unless you choose to interpret it that way.

????
http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_63.html

R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh?13 This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve

Why would he do it with a cow?

He didn't eat yet from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, like all puritan Christians do all the time.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"well-respected" is not what makes him great.

In all my career of inventor of the number 666 in Genesis 1:31 there has been no one to support me except for Rashi.

I agree that mere respect does not make him a "great scholar." But neither does the fact that he is the only one to support your thesis. And indeed, that seems to be a biased reason for accepting him as a "great scholar." Bias leads to errors in logic.

he was far more intelligent scholar than the so called church -fathers and the like

I agree that the church fathers sometimes wrote crap that does not show a deep understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. But Jewish commentators also wrote their fair share of crap. They made up ridiculous stories that directly contradict both the text of Scripture and common sense. For example, the Zohar makes up a bunch of reasons that David did not "really" sin in the affair with Bathsheba. How absurd is that?

It is interesting that the Jewish Virtual Library says that Rashi didn't even write most of the explanations in his commentary:

Most of his explanations were not written by him. Apparently, students would ask him questions about the text, or he would rhetorically ask questions about specific words, and a student would write his short, lucid answers in the margin of the parchment text. These answers comprise Rashi's commentary. We now have the answers, but the trick to studying Rashi is to figure out what the problem was with the text or the grammar of a given word.

It makes no sense to think that Rashi is authoritative. His opinions were fallible, and he collected the opinions of other fallible men. It is fine to use him as a witness to those opinions, but I can't see any reason to think that his opinions are correct. Every opinion must be tested in light of logic and facts. If he doesn't give good reasons for his opinions, then we have no reason to believe them any more than any other opinion.

Rashi stresses the importance of the letter "hey" of "hashishi":

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi/true

the sixth day: Scripture added a “hey” on the sixth [day], at the completion of the Creation, to tell us that He stipulated with them, [“you were created] on the condition that Israel accept the Five Books of the Torah.” [The numerical value of the “hey” is five.] (Tanchuma Bereishith 1). Another explanation for “the sixth day” : They [the works of creation] were all suspended until the “sixth day,” referring to the sixth day of Sivan, which was prepared for the giving of the Torah (Shab. 88a). [The“hey” is the definite article, alluding to the well-known sixth day, the sixth day of Sivan, when the Torah was given (ad loc.).]

"Scripture added a “hey” " -- הוסיף ה'

In all my career of inventor of the number 666 in Genesis 1:31 there has been no one to support me except for Rashi.

That's an excellent example of the fundamental fallacy of eisegesis, which is the sin qua non of rabbinic interpretation (which is anything but exegesis). Here's what the wiki says about it:

Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς "into" and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases into and onto the text. The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discover-able meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests either of the two reasons Rashi has given for the addition of the letter hey. Those interpreters just made up stuff that fit their biases.

Although Rashi doesn't say that the Name of God is hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" he lets you know that he knows it.

F.e. by his comment on Genesis 1:1, (translation is from chabad.org)

ברא א-להים: ולא אמר ברא ה'
God’s creation of the heavens and the earth: But it does not say “of the Lord’s creation of” (i.e., it should say “of the Lord God’s creation of” as below 2:4 “on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven”) for in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice, and that is the reason it is written:“on the day the Lord God made earth and heaven.”

How does Rashi's comment indicate he know about the acrostic?

Oh - so you are trying to prove them wrong about their religion?

No.
In fact my teacher of exegesis of the Old Testament and of biblical Hebrew, a priest, showed me "the other way" of reading the Bible, which is indicated by the number of 318 trained servants of Abraham with whom he gained victory over the four kings in favor of the five. (Genesis 14:14).
He wasn't allowed to go that way. He mentioned the book of Weinreb "Torah as blueprint of the universe".
By then I did find the number 666 as hidden in Genesis 1:31.
Which in fact is the stone rejected by the builders, the stone rolled upon the entrance (door) of Jesus' tomb, right at the end of the sixth day = beginning of Sabbat.
My teacher exegesis New Testament, with whom we did read Mark, didn't want to know nothing about those things.
And also not the other teachers. They just have no room for it, pre-occupied wiht their own scholarship.
Beat them?
Most of them did pass away.

Why then did you say "To beat my teachers" in answer to my question "What is the purpose of your work on the NT? What are you hoping to accomplish?". It is very difficult to make sense of your answers some times because you give ambiguous one liners that you later seem to contradict.

The rabbinic tradition about the number 318 doesn't make any sense. All Rashi does is report the tradition that it secretly implies that only Abram and Eleazar went to battle. There is no reason whatsoever to think that is true, and it doesn't even make sense.

It is good that you are beginning to state your thesis. But still, it is not clear to me. What does the 666 in Genesis 1:31 have to do with the stone that the builders rejected, other than the obvious fact that they share the same numerical value (l'rosh pinnah = 666)?

And it makes no sense to say that this is "the stone rolled upon the entrance (door) of Jesus' tomb" since Jesus himself is the "corner stone."

If I wouldn't have been a sinner I could have been Messiah.

Oh really? So you fit all the prophecies of Messiah, except you are a sinner? That doesn't make any sense to me.

You rejected from the start (many years ago already) my great finding.

[/quote]
What makes you think I "rejected" your "great finding?" I don't even know what is "great" about it yet because you have not yet stated yoru thesis! What specifically did I "reject" and why? It must be very frustrating to be posting things for years and years without anyone understanding what you are trying to get at. Why don't you just state your thesis with clarity? Then you will know if I reject it or not and I will be able to give you reasons for my response and you can correct me if I have misunderstood something.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

because it usually is translated that way.
But the word "tsela" doens't occur in another place with the meanig of rib as a bone.

Exodus 25:12

And you shall cast four golden rings for it, and you shall place them upon its four corners, two rings on its one side, and two rings on its other side.

No, text says:
and He took one of his sides, and He closed flesh in its place

I don't understand what that could mean. What does it mean to "take one of his sides"?

Klein's Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language says it means "rib" and shows how it relates to other Semitic languages that have cognate words with the same meaning.

So what is your point anyway? What do you think "side" is supposed to mean?

That was the page I cited in my previous post. It's where I got this quote from Yevamoth 63a:

This time: This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve. — [from Yev. 63a]

I was wondering if you knew of any other rabbinic comments that would confirm the interpretation that Adam had sex with the animals. I asked because some Jews argue that the comment has been misinterpreted and that it doesn't say anything about Adam having sex with the animals.

????
http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_63.html

You did not understand my question. I have been repeatedly asking if there are any OTHER rabbinic comments that would confirm the interpretation given in Yebamoth 63a that Adam had sex with the animals. I have repeatedly quoted Yebamoth 63a, so you should have understood I already knew about that text.

[sylvius]

It makes no sense to think that Rashi is authoritative.

Grant me my dreams. I have been in Worms, and I like the river Rhine.

There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests either of the two reasons Rashi has given for the addition of the letter hey. Those interpreters just made up stuff that fit their biases.

On the sixth day of Sivan Hashem made/makes known his Name that is hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim"

How does Rashi's comment indicate he know about the acrostic?

It says that the Name is hidden in the first story of creation.

in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice

In the beginning = בתחלה, "bat'chillah"
He preceded = הקדים "hikdim"

Why then did you say "To beat my teachers" in answer to my question "What is the purpose of your work on the NT? What are you hoping to accomplish?".

I want my right.

The rabbinic tradition about the number 318 doesn't make any sense.

That doesn't matter at all.
Genesis 14:14 is the only place where gematria comes to the surface.
It is the gematria of the name Eliezer.
Genesis 15:2,
And Abram said, "O Lord God, what will You give me, since I am going childless, and the steward of my household is Eliezer of Damascus?"
NT Lazarus for sure is the same, Jesus' beloved disciple, who was at the bossom of Jesus like Jesus was at the bossom of the father. The father, the most high God, of whom Malki Tzedek was priest.

It is good that you are beginning to state your thesis. But still, it is not clear to me. What does the 666 in Genesis 1:31 have to do with the stone that the builders rejected

If the letter "hey"was missing there would not have been the Name of God hidden in the initial letters of the last two words of Genesis 1:31 and the first tow words of Genesis 2:1, there would be no entrance to the Sabbat nor to the kingdom of God, the door would be closed. (the first chapter of Genesis being written with 434 words, 434 = "delet",door)

other than the obvious fact that they share the same numerical value (l'rosh pinnah = 666)?

That's new to me.
I noticed already long time ago (my teacher said nonsense) tha Mark plays with the root "panah" -- "panu derech" = prepare the way. Etc.

And it makes no sense to say that this is "the stone rolled upon the entrance (door) of Jesus' tomb" since Jesus himself is the "corner stone."

ok there, at the entrance of sabbat.

Oh really? So you fit all the prophecies of Messiah, except you are a sinner? That doesn't make any sense to me.

What prophecies?

What makes you think I "rejected" your "great finding?" I don't even know what is "great" about it yet because you have not yet stated yoru thesis! What specifically did I "reject" and why? It must be very frustrating to be posting things for years and years without anyone understanding what you are trying to get at. Why don't you just state your thesis with clarity? Then you will know if I reject it or not and I will be able to give you reasons for my response and you can correct me if I have misunderstood something.

Nobody understood.

[sylvius]

I don't understand what that could mean. What does it mean to "take one of his sides"?

Klein's Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language says it means "rib" and shows how it relates to other Semitic languages that have cognate words with the same meaning.

So what is your point anyway? What do you think "side" is supposed to mean?

The point was that "bone from my bones" doesn't refer to one of his ribs.

"etsem" does also mean essence.

Jewish tradition knows the Luz-bone, that cannot decay and from which man is resurrected.

Animals do not have such a bone.

What exactly is meant with side, I think has to do with the original Adam being an hermaphrodite, both male and female. God took away the female-side and fabriqued the woman out of it.

You did not understand my question. I have been repeatedly asking if there are any OTHER rabbinic comments that would confirm the interpretation given in Yebamoth 63a that Adam had sex with the animals. I have repeatedly quoted Yebamoth 63a, so you should have understood I already knew about that text.

ok, I don't know, I said already.
It is not in the Midrash Rabbah.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Grant me my dreams. I have been in Worms, and I like the river Rhine.

Certainly! May all your dreams come true.

Rashi stresses the importance of the letter "hey" of "hashishi":

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi/true
the sixth day: Scripture added a “hey” on the sixth [day], at the completion of the Creation, to tell us that He stipulated with them, [“you were created] on the condition that Israel accept the Five Books of the Torah.” [The numerical value of the “hey” is five.] (Tanchuma Bereishith 1). Another explanation for “the sixth day” : They [the works of creation] were all suspended until the “sixth day,” referring to the sixth day of Sivan, which was prepared for the giving of the Torah (Shab. 88a). [The“hey” is the definite article, alluding to the well-known sixth day, the sixth day of Sivan, when the Torah was given (ad loc.).]

"Scripture added a “hey” " -- הוסיף ה'

In all my career of inventor of the number 666 in Genesis 1:31 there has been no one to support me except for Rashi.

There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests either of the two reasons Rashi has given for the addition of the letter hey. Those interpreters just made up stuff that fit their biases.

On the sixth day of Sivan Hashem made/makes known his Name that is hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim"

First, you didn't answer my point.

Second, the name was already well known long before that date. Why would you say that he made it known on the sixth of Sivan?

Third, there are problems with the date of Shavuot. Yes, the dominant tradition says that it was the sixth day of Sivan. But not everyone agrees. Here's what the wiki article says:

The Torah states that the Omer offering (i.e., the first day of counting the Omer) is the first day of the barley harvest (Deut. 16:9). It should begin "on the morrow after the Shabbat", and continue to be counted for seven Sabbaths. (Lev. 23:11). The Talmudic Sages determined that "Shabbat" here means a day of rest and refers to the first day of Passover. Thus, the counting of the Omer begins on the second day of Passover and continues for the next 49 days, or seven complete weeks, ending on the day before Shavuot.

According to this calculation, Shavuot will fall on the day of the week after that of the first day of Passover (e.g., if Passover starts on a Thursday, Shavuot will begin on a Friday).

Most secular scholarship, and the Karaites, as well as Catholics^[32] and the historical Sadducees and Boethusians, dispute this interpretation. They infer the "Shabbat" referenced is the weekly Shabbat. Accordingly, Shavuot falls on the day after the weekly shabbat, counting from seven weeks since the day after the first shabbat during Pesach.

This interpretation was shared by the 2nd-century BCE author of the Book of Jubilees who was motivated by the priestly sabbatical solar calendar of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE, which was designed to have festivals and Sabbaths fall on the same day of the week every year. On this calendar (best known from the Book of Luminaries in 1 Enoch), Shavuot fell on the 15th of Sivan, a Sunday. The date was reckoned fifty days from the first Sabbath after Passover (i.e. from the 25th of Nisan). Thus, Jub. 1:1 claims that Moses ascended Mount Sinai to receive the Torah "on the sixteenth day of the third month in the first year of the Exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt".

If you had a Christian bias you would probably prefer these other interpretations since they say Shavuot (Pentecost) is 50 days after the first sabbath after the Passover which means that the Holy Spirit was given on a Sunday. This was my preferred interpretation when I was a Christian.

As you can see, there are enough variations in tradition to allow folks to make up whatever they want according to their own biases. Why should we believe any of it?

Although Rashi doesn't say that the Name of God is hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" he lets you know that he knows it.

F.e. by his comment on Genesis 1:1, (translation is from chabad.org)

ברא א-להים: ולא אמר ברא ה'
God’s creation of the heavens and the earth: But it does not say “of the Lord’s creation of” (i.e., it should say “of the Lord God’s creation of” as below 2:4 “on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven”) for in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice, and that is the reason it is written:“on the day the Lord God made earth and heaven.”

How does Rashi's comment indicate he knew about the acrostic?

It says that the Name is hidden in the first story of creation.

Where does it say that the Name is hidden in the first story of creation? And again, you have not given any evidence for your claim that Rashi knew about the acrostic.

It says that the Name is hidden in the first story of creation.

in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice

In the beginning = בתחלה, "bat'chillah"
He preceded = הקדים "hikdim"

OK - now I think I know what you are getting at. The name YHVH = 26 = 2 x 13 is associated with love (ahavah = 13) and the 13 attributes of mercy as opposed to the name Elohim = 86 which is associated with law and judgment. So you think that his comment implies a knowledge of the acrostic merely because he mentions mercy? I don't see how that implication follows.

Why then did you say "To beat my teachers" in answer to my question "What is the purpose of your work on the NT? What are you hoping to accomplish?".

I want my right.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you really want to be understood, you should try writing sentences with more than three words.

The rabbinic tradition about the number 318 doesn't make any sense.

That doesn't matter at all.
Genesis 14:14 is the only place where gematria comes to the surface.
It is the gematria of the name Eliezer.
Genesis 15:2,
And Abram said, "O Lord God, what will You give me, since I am going childless, and the steward of my household is Eliezer of Damascus?"
NT Lazarus for sure is the same, Jesus' beloved disciple, who was at the bossom of Jesus like Jesus was at the bossom of the father. The father, the most high God, of whom Malki Tzedek was priest.

Yes, of course 318 is the value of Eleazar. But that does not imply that they were the only two in the battle! That's what I'm talking about - the rabbis just make up crazy things for no good reason.

If the letter "hey"was missing there would not have been the Name of God hidden in the initial letters of the last two words of Genesis 1:31 and the first tow words of Genesis 2:1, there would be no entrance to the Sabbat nor to the kingdom of God, the door would be closed. (the first chapter of Genesis being written with 434 words, 434 = "delet",door)

How is it possible that you believe that? You know nothing of what would or would not be possible if the letter hey was missing from that word.

That's new to me.
I noticed already long time ago (my teacher said nonsense) tha Mark plays with the root "panah" -- "panu derech" = prepare the way. Etc.

Please give examples of other places he "plays with the root panah." It is interesting that that word plays an important role in Malachi on Spoke 17, corresponding to Pey (as in panah).

And it makes no sense to say that this is "the stone rolled upon the entrance (door) of Jesus' tomb" since Jesus himself is the "corner stone."

ok there, at the entrance of sabbat.

Are you agreeing that your previous statement makes no sense? That's the impression I get when you say "ok" and change to something else.

What prophecies?

If there are none, what are you talking about when you speak of the messiah?

Nobody understood.

Have you considered this may be because you are not trying to make yourself clear? You have been studying this for 35 years and you can't even state what your thesis is. That's the source of much confusion.