The Mystical Intent.


Attention is called to part of the 46th verse of the 27th chapter of Matthew, as follows: "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani? -that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Of course, our versions are taken from the original Greek manuscripts (the reason why we have no original Hebrew manuscripts concerning these occurrences being because the enigmas in Hebrew would betray themselves on comparison with the sources of their derivation, the Old Testament). The Greek manuscripts, without exception, give these words as-

They are Hebrew words, rendered into the Greek, and in Hebrew are as follows:

The Scripture of these words says, "that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" as their proper translation. Here then are the words, beyond all dispute; and beyond all question, such is the interpretation given of them by Scripture. Now the words will not bear this interpretation, and it is a false rendering. The true meaning is just the opposite of the one given, and is-

"My God, my God, how thou dost glorify me!"

But even more, for while lama is why, or how, as a verbal it connects the idea of to dazzle, or adverbially, it could run "how dazzlingly," and so on. To the unwary reader this interpretation is enforced and made to answer, as it were, to the fulfillment of a prophetic utterance, by a marginal reference to the first verse of the twenty-second Psalm, which reads:

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The Hebrew of this verse for these words is-

as to which the reference is correct, and the interpretation sound and good, but with an utterly different word. The words are-

No wit of man, however scholarly, can save this passage from falseness of rendering on its face; and as so, it becomes a most terrible blow upon the proper first-face sacredness of the recital. There is but one, and there is one escape, and that is by having resort to the mystical intent. The Hebrew phrase was purposed as it reads, and its antagonistic and false rendering was purposed as it reads. It was on the same principle already mentioned, of the crossed bones and skull, as an emblem of death, being placed over the door of life and signifying birth, or of the intercontainment of two opposite principles in one, just as, mystically, the Savior was held to be man-woman. This was the idea intended, and interpreted thus, the passage suffers no violence of distortion. Above, the numerical values of the words have been given, as connecting themselves with the INRI, or 288 X 4 = 1152, of the Inner Square and outer square of the encampment, which at the same time is the base of the pyramid, by equivalence. But by these numbers, Eli is 113 (by placing the word in a circle); Lamah being 345, is by change of letters to suit the same values ( ) (in a circle), or Moses, while Sabachth is John, or the dove, or Holy Spirit, because (in a circle) it is 710 (or 355 X 2). The termination ni, as nuni, or 565 becomes Jehovah. Connecting this phrase with INRI, and it throws light upon the transfiguration scene on the mount. There were present there Peter and James and John with Jesus: or ( ), Iami, James, water; ( ), Peter, earth; ( ), John, spirit, air, and, ( ), Jesus, fire, life-together INRI. But behold Eli and Moses met them there, or ( ) and ( ), or Eli and lamah, or 113 and 345. And this shows that the scene of transfiguration was connected with the one above set forth.