Metaphysics of Gender.

[John D. Brey]

The last decade has seen the most brilliant Jewish professors alive, notably men like Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, and or, rabbi and scholar Daniel Boyarin, examining the foundations and relations between Judaism and Christianity on a level, and to a degree, that dwarfs all that's come before (Professor Wolfson's 2019 treaties, Heidegger and Kabbalah, is a case in point). A careful reading of their most seminal works, and points, point to the fact that a metaphysics of gender is the lowest common denominator separating Judaism and authentic Christianity. Decipher the metaphysical cipher of gender, the metaphysics of gender, and the symbiotic relationship between Judaism and Christianity will be laid bare.



John

 

[Notthedarkweb]

This reminds me of the Jewish commentary and subsequent queer theological tradition that understands Adam as being made as a non-binary individual in whom both the male and female is actualized.

 

[John D. Brey]

This reminds me of the Jewish commentary and subsequent queer theological tradition that understands Adam as being made as a non-binary individual in whom both the male and female is actualized.

. . . A foundational question in the quest would concern whether Adam was non-binary or androgynous?




John

 

[Estro Felino]

Interesting.
I guess it has to do with the fact we Christians believe the son of God was delivered through a vagina?

 

[John D. Brey]

Interesting.
I guess it has to do with the fact we Christians believe the son of God was delivered through a vagina?

. . . No doubt. But for the first time in human history we may, as a species, have laid the scientific, philosophical, and theological groundwork, to make sense of such a thing in a manner that doesn't in the end have to fall back on inscrutable mystical mystery. If that's indeed the case, it would presuppose, and require, a new day and a new relationship between Judaism and Christianity.



John

 

[leov]

. . . A foundation question in the quest would concern whether Adam was non-binary or androgynous?




John

Or nin-physical at that point, like Adam Kadmon. Thought , plan of God in principle only.

 

[John D. Brey]

Or nin-physical at that point, like Adam Kadmon. Thought , plan of God in principle only.

. . . What do you mean by nin-physical?



John

 

[PureX]

My understanding of the primary difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Christianity introduces the idea of "God within", as opposed to God being a fundamentally external, confrontational force. But I don't see the "metaphysics of gender" having much to do with this. Both religions are excessively patriarchal and authoritarian, regardless.

 

[leov]

. . . What do you mean by nin-physical?



John

sorry, non- physical form.

 

[leov]

My understanding of the primary difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Christianity introduces the idea of "God within", as opposed to God being a fundamentally external, confrontational force. But I don't see the "metaphysics of gender" having much to do with this. Both religions are excessively patriarchal and authoritarian, regardless.

Genesis says that G-d input a 'part' of Self into adama to make it living soul, so , God is within every human, as soul is a spiritual entity, imo. By G-d's pattern. Christianity is the next step in evolution of consciousness.

 

[dybmh]

A careful reading of their most seminal works, and points, point to the fact that a metaphysics of gender is the lowest common denominator separating Judaism and authentic Christianity.

If you have time, I would appreciate a few examples of how metaphysics of gender is the lowest common denominator separating Judaism and authentic Christianity. Thank you.

 

[Estro Felino]

For example...I think transgenderism is more accepted in Christianity than in Judaism.

In Italy post-op trans women can get married in a Catholic Church

 

[John D. Brey]

My understanding of the primary difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Christianity introduces the idea of "God within", as opposed to God being a fundamentally external, confrontational force. But I don't see the "metaphysics of gender" having much to do with this. Both religions are excessively patriarchal and authoritarian, regardless.

. . . Exempting your not seeing the metaphysics of gender playing a role, I agree with everything you've said. . . And you last statement could read to imply that the authority of both religions arises from patriarchal pedigree, which could segue into a metaphysics of gender.

Ironically, Jewish identity passes through the mother not the father. And equally ironic, Jesus had a biological relationship to a woman, his mother; but not, on the surface, through a human father.

The irony of matriarchal ontology being overrun by patriarchal authority seems to go against the metaphysical, and philosophical, disposition of both faiths, to make origin preeminent. In other words, if the origin of Judaism and Christianity are ontologically matriarchal, the authority of the patriarch is at least problematic.



John

 

[Estro Felino]

. . . Exempting your not seeing the metaphysics of gender playing a role, I agree with everything you've said. . . And you last statement could read to imply that the authority of both religions arises from patriarchal pedigree, which could segue into a metaphysics of gender.

Ironically, Jewish identity passes through the mother not the father. And equally ironic, Jesus had a biological relationship to a woman, his mother; but not, on the surface, through a human father.

The irony of matriarchal ontology being overrun by patriarchal authority seems to go against the metaphysical, and philosophical, disposition of both faiths, to make origin preeminent. In other words, if the origin of Judaism and Christianity are ontologically matriarchal, the authority of the patriarch is at least problematic.



John

Yes...but this does not explain why males are circumcised...which practically excludes females from the pact
Whereas in Christianity all babies are baptized.

 

[John D. Brey]

sorry, non- physical form.

. . . Philo supposed "maleness" is immaterial, while "femaleness" is material. If we take that presupposition to the bank, then Adam's original body should have been non-gendered female. In other words, Adam's original body should have been what today we think of as "female" though before there was a "male" body, the original body would have been non-gendered since there would be nothing to compare it with in a binary or dualistic sense. It would have been just as male, notwithstanding female genitalia, as it was female, until the arrival of the phallus (Gen. 2:21) caused a distinction to be made.

Which is to say that if Philo is correct about immaterial maleness and material femaleness, then the original, material body, of humanity, should have possessed what we now consider female genitalia.

That being the case, normal gender metaphysics may have been distorted from the very Genesis of the written word.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

For example...I think transgenderism is more accepted in Christianity than in Judaism.

In Italy post-op trans women can get married in a Catholic Church

. . . In the studies mentioned in the thread-seeder, Wolfson and Boyarin both point out how patriarchal authority is wired into Judaism in a manner which is not as much a doctrinal necessary concerning Christian thought.

The Roman Catholic idea of celibacy can, as Wolfson implies, be something like a practiced rejection of gender. Professor Wolfson quotes statements from theological scholars and church authorities implying that a celibate nun is not necessarily a female in the theological sense. He points out that church theology actually distinguishes a "virgin" from a female. A virgin is not technically a female. She's something like Adam prior to Genesis 2:21. A sealed-womb represents androgyny or pre-gendered status. Which leads into scriptures like Exodus 13:2, and Matthew 1:23, which ironically share the same numbers with the former having a digit, so to say, in the middle, which should really be last.



John

 

[sealchan]

. . . Philo supposed "maleness" is immaterial, while "femaleness" is material. If we take that presupposition to the bank, then Adam's original body should have been non-gendered female. In other words, Adam's original body should have been what today we think of as "female" though before there was a "male" body, the original body would have been non-gendered since there would be nothing to compare it with in a binary or dualistic sense. It would have been just as male, notwithstanding female genitalia, as it was female, until the arrival of the phallus (Gen. 2:21) caused a distinction to be made.

Which is to say that if Philo is correct about immaterial maleness and material femaleness, then the original, material body, of humanity, should have possessed what we now consider female genitalia.

That being the case, normal gender metaphysics may have been distorted from the very Genesis of the written word.



John

My own study of dreams and symbolism that the psyche produces and which underlies our cognition and language is that our sense of self is developed in two modes: the separative and the cooperative.

The separative mode of self or ego development attempts to concentrate control and power into a single conscious center. All other things are to be subservient to this central authority.

The cooperative mode of ego development seeks to maintain a node in an integrated network of nodes where power is distributed but collaboration is key. All things are given their share so that no one node becomes dominant.

These two modes are operative in the psyches of men and women but many may perceive the intuitive association of the separative with the masculine and the cooperative with the feminine. This distinction goes deep into the psyches of the individual and the myths they adhere to.

Having said that I am not clear on how you see the metaphysics of gender as differentiating Judaism and Christianity.

 

[leov]

. . . Philo supposed "maleness" is immaterial, while "femaleness" is material. If we take that presupposition to the bank, then Adam's original body should have been non-gendered female. In other words, Adam's original body should have been what today we think of as "female" though before there was a "male" body, the original body would have been non-gendered since there would be nothing to compare it with in a binary or dualistic sense. It would have been just as male, notwithstanding female genitalia, as it was female, until the arrival of the phallus (Gen. 2:21) caused a distinction to be made.

Which is to say that if Philo is correct about immaterial maleness and material femaleness, then the original, material body, of humanity, should have possessed what we now consider female genitalia.

That being the case, normal gender metaphysics may have been distorted from the very Genesis of the written word.



John

Genesis is 100 % metaphorical. There is no uniform understanding of what it truly means. Referring to 49 gates of understanding i’d say it was intensional.

 

[Estro Felino]

The Roman Catholic idea of celibacy

Unfortunately the RC idea of celibacy was created as an expedient.
That is...celibate priests had to remain childless, so ar their death their property was inherited by the Church.

 

[PureX]

. . . Exempting your not seeing the metaphysics of gender playing a role, I agree with everything you've said. . . And you last statement could read to imply that the authority of both religions arises from patriarchal pedigree, which could segue into a metaphysics of gender.

Ironically, Jewish identity passes through the mother not the father. And equally ironic, Jesus had a biological relationship to a woman, his mother; but not, on the surface, through a human father.

The irony of matriarchal ontology being overrun by patriarchal authority seems to go against the metaphysical, and philosophical, disposition of both faiths, to make origin preeminent. In other words, if the origin of Judaism and Christianity are ontologically matriarchal, the authority of the patriarch is at least problematic.

John

I think you're confusing/conflating culture with theology, and admittedly, they have been almost inextricably intertwined, until recently. However, I think that leaving them that way only serves the cause of confusion, especially to people living in a modern and at least somewhat less patriarchal world. And especially in terms of modern theology, which no longer significantly rests on such cultural gender biases. Who among us, these days, really cares about genealogy in terms of spiritual authority? Or even gender for that matter? And what are those that do care protecting, except the biases of the past?

It's taken two millennium, and it may take another millennium, yet, but I do see humanity as finally acceding to the spiritual revelation of Christ, as opposed to the religious authoritarianism that killed the messenger, and has been trying to kill that spiritual message and promise of Christ ever since.