Isaiah 63:11-12.

[dybmh]

until Moses wigged out

John, please share the significance of Moses "wigging out"?

Why is that an important aspect of your version of the narrative?

Moses is said to make his serpent-rod leprous by placing it in his bosom

The homo-erotic word choices are apparent to anyone reading your threads.

Spoiler: fore-skene

Christianity intends to correct Judaism

John, if you expect me to believe that your purpose is to "fully understand" and not to correct Jews and Judaism, you're fooling yourself.

What is the correction you intend to bring against Jews and Judaism?

Lacking a compelling alternative, the only answer which makes sense is this:

John, you are trying to convince Jews to move beyond their aversion to Jesus, as if we are closeted gay men who have an aversion to our own manhood. But, this doesn't resonate with us, because we are not at all like closeted gay men. This resonates with you. But not for most people.

Jews do not "wig out" about Jesus like a closeted gay man wigs out about being confronted with their own attraction to their own gender, or a straight-man "wigs out" in denial of his affection for ( fixation on ) his own manhood.

 

[John D. Brey]

In order to fully understand: it must be done through the lens of THEIR faith, not yours.

That's putting exegesis before eisegesis. Which is the fallacy of induction as so clearly laid out by Karl Popper.

So many of the errors that exist in the world in which we live, particularly our backwards theology, is based on people thinking they're functioning through the objectivity of induction (exegesis before eisegesis) when, as Popper shows, that never, ever, occurs in reality. We start with a presupposition, and that eisegetical presupposition is the lens through which we examine things.

The fairminded ladies say: But if that's true, then how could anyone ever see something incompatible with their presupposition? To which my response is for them to read Thomas Kuhn's, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Kuhn explains that when enough evidence piles up against the original presupposition, the observer doesn't change his mind (which would be inductive). On the contrary, his original prism shatters, creating a seriously chaotic event, not a natural, inductive, shift from one point of view to another, but an unruly conversion-experience. After the original prism or presupposition shatters under the weight of contrary evidence, a whole new epistemology must form, which is a painful and cognatively expensive conversion-experience, not a natural inductive shift.

I've personally noted the peculiar truism that when I study the writings of numerous Jewish rabbis who converted to Christianity after a previously deep faith in Jewish tradition, they never (or I should say very rarely), to my utter amazement, use their new faith as a lens to make sense of Jewish tradition in light of the new faith. Since enough evidence had to pile up high enough to shatter their previous epistemological prism (Judaism proper), true to form, they start fresh building up an entirely new foundation based on the Christian concepts that shattered their previous prism.

Unlike these rabbis who "converted" to Christianity (at the price of their former epistemological foundation), I haven't had my Jewish prism shattered during a conversion experience, such that I'm able to examine Jewish scripture through a speculum that's as intact anb shiny as it ever was. Which is to impy that based on the truth that iduction is always a farce, I'm able to examine Judaism through a Christian lens in a manner that no serious Jew, exempting that rare bird, can examine Judaism after converting to Christianity.

Finally, the kicker I believe makes my studies valuable. Traditional Judaism simply can't, or won't, conscience Christian ideas (divine incarnation, Messiah as divine man) etc. In traditional Judaism, Christianity's foundational belief is completely unacceptable. Which means the prism a Jew brings to Christian examination can't even examine Christianity quasi-objectively. On the other hand, Christianity takes the Jewish scriptures and retroactively reads Christ into the examination of the Tanakh. Which means a Christian can study the hell out of the Tanakh without putting much pressure on the prism used to do the study.

There's probably a sense in which the Christian's retroactive-exegesis is based directly on the fallacy of inductive logic. It's similar to the Jewish sages who concede that the narratives in the Tanakh, at least in their spiritual content, aren't chronological. The great Jewish sages are fully aware that the exegete can use Isaiah, and the Psalms, to retroactively make sense of the narratives in the Pentateuch. The historical narrative is naturally linear. But the spiritual content isn't asymmetrically linear. The transcendental signifier needed to fully understand the the spiritual content of the entire scripture can come hundreds of years after most of the books have already been canonized. That's a difficult pill for an exegete blinded by the fallacy of induction to swallow.



John

 

[dybmh]

From "Beginner's Guide to Literary Analysis" ( emphasis mine )

" ... Although you’re forming your own argument about the work, it’s not your opinion. You should avoid passing judgment on the piece and instead objectively consider what the author intended, how they went about executing it, and whether or not they were successful in doing so. "

Beginner's Guide to Literary Analysis | SuperSummary

Literary analysis is the foundation of high-level English classes—but what, exactly, is literary analysis, and how do you do it? In this article, we'll share how to perform literary analysis on any text, as well as how to write a literary analysis essay (including worksheets for writing your...

www.supersummary.com

 

[dybmh]

That's putting exegesis before eisegesis. Which is the fallacy of induction as so clearly laid out by Karl Popper.

So many of the errors that exist in the world in which we live, particularly our backwards theology, is based on people thinking they're functioning ...

" ... functioning ... "

That's a category error. We are discussing objective observation. Not day-to-day functioning. Individuals routinely suspend their self-imposed biases in all manner of inquiry. It's intentional. I suspect Popper is describing something else, not, intentional objectivity.

 

[John D. Brey]

From "Beginner's Guide to Literary Analysis" ( emphasis mine )

" ... Although you’re forming your own argument about the work, it’s not your opinion. You should avoid passing judgment on the piece and instead objectively consider what the author intended, how they went about executing it, and whether or not they were successful in doing so. "

Beginner's Guide to Literary Analysis | SuperSummary

Literary analysis is the foundation of high-level English classes—but what, exactly, is literary analysis, and how do you do it? In this article, we'll share how to perform literary analysis on any text, as well as how to write a literary analysis essay (including worksheets for writing your...

www.supersummary.com

Sometimes what the beginner is taught is a stumbling stone to more advanced studies. Most people considered Popper nuts when he said induction is a fallacy. Even today most people can't get their head around what it would mean if Popper were correct.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

" ... functioning ... "

That's a category error. We are discussing objective observation. Not day-to-day functioning. Individuals routinely suspend their self-imposed biases in all manner of inquiry. It's intentional. I suspect Popper is describing something else, not, intentional objectivity.

The problem is that when the average idiot is taught by his teachers to be objective, to set aside his biases, and read what the author is saying, or hear the speaker is saying, the student is dumb enough to think that's not only a good idea, but that it can be done. Worse, he begins doing it. Which is to say he begins to fool himself more deeply than before he was taught to be objective. We can't set our presuppositions and prejudices aside to see things since we need the prism of our biases even to make observations.

Theories are nets we cast to catch what we call "the world": to rationalize, to explain, and to master it.​

​

Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, p. 59.​

​

All observations are theory impregnated: there is no pure, disinterested, theory-free observation.​

​

Karl Popper, Evolutionary Epistemology, in David Miller's, Popper's Selections, p. 84.​

​

The belief that science [or exegesis] proceeds from observation to theory is still so widely and so firmly held that my denial of it is often met with incredulity. I have even been suspected of being insincere - of denying what nobody in his senses can doubt. . . .But in fact the belief that we can start with pure observations alone, without anything in the nature of a theory [or prejudice], is absurd.​

​

Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (brackets mine).​

​

John

 

[Feedmysheep]

As Hezekiah had Nehushtan (which is the latter manifestation of Moses' rod) hammered down as a leprous, leavened, icon of sin, idolatry, and divine judgment, so too, Rabbi Hirsch's pen dispenses with God's error in even bothering with the useless rod Judaism has all but ignored in her exegesis of these things.​

John

I would submit that the dispensational significance of the budding rod and the bronze serpent are indispensable in seeing
God's economy in Christ. While I can see Hezekiah wanting to have what became an idol crushed you don't agree that
God made a mistake do you?

I mean both the budded rod and the bronse serpent lifted up on a pole are types of Christ's salvation work. Am I right?

May I volunteer a scripture song on the lifting up of the bronze serpent pointing to Christ?

 

[John D. Brey]

There's probably a sense in which the Christian's retroactive-exegesis is based directly on the fallacy of inductive logic. It's similar to the Jewish sages who concede that the narratives in the Tanakh, at least in their spiritual content, aren't chronological. The great Jewish sages are fully aware that the exegete can use Isaiah, and the Psalms, to retroactively make sense of the narratives in the Pentateuch. The historical narrative is naturally linear. But the spiritual content isn't asymmetrically linear. The transcendental signifier needed to fully understand the the spiritual content of the entire scripture can come hundreds of years after most of the books have already been canonized. That's a difficult pill for an exegete blinded by the fallacy of induction to swallow.

Someone might say, but John, if the transcendental signifier required to know precisely what's going on in the narrative isn't given till hundreds of years after the primary texts are canonized in writing, then what the heck is the true believer who is part and parcel of those canonical narratives believing is the truth of the matter in real time? If he doesn't have the transcendental signifier, then how can he know what's actually going on?

Voila! Judaism teaches precisely that the decrees of God, particularly the "signs" and "symbol" upon which Jewish faith rests, i.e., ritual circumcision, parah adumah, etc., etc., can't, won't, be known, until a future time, the messianic-era, such that only then, retrospectively, retroactively, can the exegete use the key's derived from the messianic life and times, to retroactively make sense of the decrees, signs, and symbols, given hundreds, or thousands, of years earlier.

The Jewish concept of the "chukkim" (decrees) is undeniably a case of wholesale concession to the non-linear, non-asymmetrical nature of all spiritual revelation. Not until the messianic-era will it be possible to fully know what's signified by ritual circumcision, Moses' rod, Nehushtan, or any other sign in the Tanakh. This makes John 3:13-15, as it parallels Deuteronomy 32:40, and similar passages, like ground zero for beginning to understand what's going on in Exodus chapter 4, so far as the Christian is concerned. The Jew, on the other hand, can only argue against the Christian reading based on the belief that Messiah hasn't come. He (the Jew) has no exegetical marching orders with which to counter the Christian reading since for him that will come at the regathering of Israel at the final Redemption. Until then, it's impossible for the Jew to know if Messiah really did come and go only to return, as Christianity says, since the Jew must wait until the final Redemption to know what the Christian might already know.




John

 

[GoodAttention]

Someone might say, but John, if the transcendental signifier required to know precisely what's going on in the narrative isn't given till hundreds of years after the primary texts are canonized in writing, then what the heck is the true believer who is part and parcel of those canonical narratives believing is the truth of the matter in real time? If he doesn't have the transcendental signifier, then how can he know what's actually going on?

Voila! Judaism teaches precisely that the decrees of God, particularly the "signs" and "symbol" upon which Jewish faith rests, i.e., ritual circumcision, parah adumah, etc., etc., can't, won't, be known, until a future time, the messianic-era, such that only then, retrospectively, retroactively, can the exegete use the key's derived from the messianic life and times, to retroactively make sense of the decrees, signs, and symbols, given hundreds, or thousands, of years earlier.

The Jewish concept of the "chukkim" (decrees) is undeniably a case of wholesale concession to the non-linear, non-asymmetrical nature of all spiritual revelation. Not until the messianic-era will it be possible to fully know what's signified by ritual circumcision, Moses' rod, Nehushtan, or any other sign in the Tanakh. This makes John 3:13-15, as it parallels Deuteronomy 32:40, and similar passages, like ground zero for beginning to understand what's going on in Exodus chapter 4, so far as the Christian is concerned. The Jew, on the other hand, can only argue against the Christian reading based on the belief that Messiah hasn't come. He (the Jew) has no exegetical marching orders with which to counter the Christian reading since for him that will come at the regathering of Israel at the final Redemption. Until then, it's impossible for the Jew to know if Messiah really did come and go only to return, as Christianity says, since the Jew must wait until the final Redemption to know what the Christian might already know.




John

The Jewish/Christian dichotomy is certainly fascinating to observe as an “outsider”.

On the one hand, Christians are correct because they do believe in the God of Abraham, even if they are not holding to the law. But they approach God literally on their knees, and how can a compassionate God turn them away?

The incessant zeal of finding God through Christ is admirable, even if irritating.

On the other hand Jews are also right, not through the action of rejection, but by their adherence to the same God. I would argue Christ has brought them closer to God even in the face of never-ending adversity.

Every single Jew could be of the Davidic line, we know he had 18 (perfect number ) children and then some, anointed to lead by example.

I think the idea of a Messiah has run its course, and yet at the same time there is still much to fulfil.

 

[Kathryn]

John, please share the significance of Moses "wigging out"?

Why is that an important aspect of your version of the narrative?



The homo-erotic word choices are apparent to anyone reading your threads.

Spoiler: fore-skene

View attachment 100413

John, if you expect me to believe that your purpose is to "fully understand" and not to correct Jews and Judaism, you're fooling yourself.

What is the correction you intend to bring against Jews and Judaism?

Lacking a compelling alternative, the only answer which makes sense is this:

John, you are trying to convince Jews to move beyond their aversion to Jesus, as if we are closeted gay men who have an aversion to our own manhood. But, this doesn't resonate with us, because we are not at all like closeted gay men. This resonates with you. But not for most people.

Jews do not "wig out" about Jesus like a closeted gay man wigs out about being confronted with their own attraction to their own gender, or a straight-man "wigs out" in denial of his affection for ( fixation on ) his own manhood.

Well, that didn't take very long.