• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reverse Engineering Judaism.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I honestly don't know where that's coming from . . ..

Fair enough. This dialogue has dragged on a bit. So let me refresh your memory.:)

Deuteronomy 4:(2): "your G-d…shall not add to what I have commanded you or subtract."

Ps. 119(160): "permanence is Your words chief trait, each of Your just ordinances is everlasting."

Your post appeared to imply that the idea of God needing to renew or change a covenant he established is refuted by various scriptures that imply permanence rather than change. Your point is well-taken. And your proof-texts back your point with written proof.

So I asked:

. . . How do you reconcile these statements with Jeremiah 31:31-33?

Jeremiah 31:31-33 says that Israel broke the covenant God made with them when he freed them from Egypt such that he's making a "new covenant" ברית חדשה with them that's "not the covenant cut with their fathers" (לֹא כַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אֶת־אֲבוֹתָם). . . It doesn't seem like we can have it both ways: God never changes a covenant, and yet he changes, or renews one (according to Jeremiah)---making it new (and unlike) the the one he made with Israel's fathers?

The holy text seems patently clear that the covenant he made with Israel's father's is broken such that he's going to renew his covenant with Israel so that it's "not" like the one he made with their fathers (which we're right to presume was permanent as originally written). How do we reconcile this remaking of the covenant with the idea of God's covenants being permanent? How can God make a covenant with Israel's fathers, and then, according to Jeremiah, accept that that covenant (which should be permanent) is broken, defunct, such that he must make a new covenant different than the first?

If there was nothing wrong with the first covenant no place would have been sought for another. . . By calling the covenant "new" God has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear [2 Cor. 3:6].​
Hebrews 8:7-13.​



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
In the Gospels, two lineages are given for the birth of the purported Jewish messiah. His mother's lineage goes all the way back to the first human, while, ironically, his step-father's lineage goes back only to Abraham? Realizing that this Jewish firstborn, thought to be the messianic-personage, has only a step-father, not a biological father, is key to the preceding paragraph, since this one little nuance (no biological father) threatens to unify three elements of the current deconstruction of Jewish thought. 1. Messiah's mother's lineage going back to the first human. 2. A Jewish law making Jewish identity come singularly from the mother. 3. Messiah's step-father's lineage going back only to Abraham.

In reverse engineering Judaism, using the Gospel account of the Jewish messiah's two lineages, we focus a bright light on the founding ritual that makes Abraham the father of the messianic brood. That founding ritual, if indeed this examination is on target, would needs-be relate directly to the fact of messiah's mother's lineage passing by Abraham and going all the way back to the first human, ha-adam, rather than stopping with Abraham or Sarah as it were, and as was the case concerning messiah's patrilineage. To this end we have the fortuitous exegesis of Rabbi Samson Hirsch whereby he points out that the true Hebrew of the text recounting the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant claims not that Abraham is given a newly established covenant, but, according to Rabbi Hirsch, the Hebrew text, faithfully exegeted, says Abraham will be given the renewal of a previously existing covenant, which, presumably, has (the previously existing covenant), at some point prior to the establishment of the Abrahamic reinstatement, become defunct.

If Abraham is reinstating the original covenant between God and the first human (ha-adam), then the central ritual used to signify this as being the case, i.e., taking a knife and cutting the male flesh on the human body, bris milah, ritual circumcision (perhaps ritual emasculation), lends itself to messiah's mother's lineage going all the way back to the first human, since, in the re-establishment of the first covenant, what must have been "strange flesh" (new flesh), that is male flesh, the male organ, the cause for the break in the covenant, the cause of the fall of mankind, is targeted, in the Abrahamic reinstatement, for removal (bringing a blade to the male flesh that broke the first covenant). What appears to have been added to the first human in order to break the original covenant, and yet allow for the propagation of the fallen epoch, i.e, male flesh, the serpentine organ, is, when Abraham renews the lapsed covenant, symbolically, ritually, significantly, removed, rendering messiah's founding father (Abraham) incapable of passing on the testimony of the broken/lapsed covenant, in the old-fashioned manner: phallic-procreation.

Voila! Messiah's birth is marked by the fact that since he has no biological father, his mother acts as both, so that her lineage goes all the way back to the only other time a human was originally designed to act as both mother and father to offspring: prelapse, pre-phallic, ha-adam.

Abraham situates himself as the father of this messianic personage by the very act that symbolizes, and thus points backward, to the only time one human was intended to be both father and mother, which is to say the prelapse human, ha-adam. By ritually unmanning himself, and thus his ability to pass on the now contaminated testimony of the first covenant, Abraham reveals the most significant aspect of the renewal of the re-engineered covenant: the birth of the messianic firstborn of humanity by means of a single-gendered conception, pregnancy, and birth, that points backwards to one verse in Genesis as the genesis of the fall and the contamination of the biological and theological scroll: Genesis 2:21. Messiah's paternal lineage goes back to father Abraham since father Abraham symbolically unmans himself to reveal that the true firstborn of humanity, the intended son of ha-adam (not the s.o.b. Cain), was supposed to be, and in the Gospel account is, fathered and mothered by the same singular person such that per Jewish law the true firstborn Jew has only, gains his lineage only through, a Jewish mother.

In the Gospel account, four people are theologically significant in messiah's conception and birth: his mother, his stepfather, Abraham (the start of messiah's patrilineage), and ha-adam (the start of his matrilineage). By symbolically emasculating himself, Abraham ritually eliminates himself and his phallic-progeny (to include messiah's stepfather) from the theological equation leaving only messiah's mother, and ha-adam, as theologically significant to the conception and birth of the Jewish messiah.

When the Temple was destroyed, its cultic function was partially preserved by the human sexual activity when performed in purity. In fact the association between Temple and paradise as places for sexual bliss and procreation has already been suggested, on the basis of many other sources . . . This transfer of the role of the Temple as the destined place for erotic events . . . the structure of a married couple . . . was seemingly facilitated by the existence of a very ancient conception of the Holy of Holies as bedroom . . ..​
Professor Moshe Idel, Hebrew University, Kabbalah and Eros, p. 33.​

Professor Idel's positing of a correlation between the function of a temple, with that of human sexuality, possesses a long antecedence. Furthermore, in scripture, sexual virginity isn't a scientific, or a common-sense topic related to vulgar and mundane human existence, but is one of the most important mythological concepts in the entire Bible. The biblical sense of virginity, which is a mythological sense, centers around the female body as a "living" (rather than stone) temple. As such, the virgin's body has a veil of sanctity beyond which no intact man can pass without destroying the sanctity of the temple, nay the temple itself, thereby profaning it and rendering it non-operative as a temple. It's this profaning of the temple that's made possible in Genesis 2:21 when ha-adam, after providing material DNA for the cloning of his temple, has strange new flesh added to his body when his labia are sutured shut to form the emblem of the demonic, serpentine, biological-masculinity. Eve isn't the newfangled gender in Genesis chapter 2; ironically that's ha-adam.

To say a living temple, a female body, is rendered inoperative by phallic-sex (destroying the veil of sanctity, the veil of virginity), brings up the obvious question of what the mythological purpose of the living temple (the virgin body of the female) is if its not to be the place where the biological male's seed is used to fertilize the "seed of the woman"? In other word, if it's true that phallic-sex desecrates the living temple, then what's the purpose of the living temple such that normal biological procreation destroys its sanctified mythological purpose? If the temple of the virgin female is desecrated by its sanctifying veil being opened by biological male flesh, the serpentine flesh created in Genesis 2:21, then if that desecration doesn't take place, and the temple produces its affect through reproduction, it could be said that ha-adam, and thus messiah's mother, were pregnant the moment they were created or born since their birth is the only requirement for either of them giving birth.



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
When the Temple was destroyed, its cultic function was partially preserved by the human sexual activity when performed in purity. In fact the association between Temple and paradise as places for sexual bliss and procreation has already been suggested, on the basis of many other sources . . . This transfer of the role of the Temple as the destined place for erotic events . . . the structure of a married couple . . . was seemingly facilitated by the existence of a very ancient conception of the Holy of Holies as bedroom . . ..​
Professor Moshe Idel, Hebrew University, Kabbalah and Eros, p. 33.​

Professor Idel's positing of a correlation between the function of a temple, with that of human sexuality, possesses a long antecedence. Furthermore, in scripture, sexual virginity isn't a scientific, or a common-sense topic related to vulgar and mundane human existence, but is one of the most important mythological concepts in the entire Bible. The biblical sense of virginity, which is a mythological sense, centers around the female body as a "living" (rather than stone) temple. As such, the virgin's body has a veil of sanctity beyond which no intact man can pass without destroying the sanctity of the temple, nay the temple itself, thereby profaning it and rendering it non-operative as a temple. It's this profaning of the temple that's made possible in Genesis 2:21 when ha-adam, after providing material DNA for the cloning of his temple, has strange new flesh added to his body when his labia are sutured shut to form the emblem of the demonic, serpentine, biological-masculinity. Eve isn't the newfangled gender in Genesis chapter 2; ironically that's ha-adam.

To say a living temple, a female body, is rendered inoperative by phallic-sex (destroying the veil of sanctity, the veil of virginity), brings up the obvious question of what the mythological purpose of the living temple (the virgin body of the female) is if its not to be the place where the biological male's seed is used to fertilize the "seed of the woman"? In other word, if it's true that phallic-sex desecrates the living temple, then what's the purpose of the living temple such that normal biological procreation destroys its sanctified mythological purpose? If the temple of the virgin female is desecrated by its sanctifying veil being opened by biological male flesh, the serpentine flesh created in Genesis 2:21, then if that desecration doesn't take place, and the temple produces its affect through reproduction, it could be said that ha-adam, and thus messiah's mother, were pregnant the moment they were created or born since their birth is the only requirement for either of them giving birth.

Ironically, Mother Nature justifies all this. As pointed out by biologists, all living organisms began as what we would today consider females: they were able to reproduce without the newfangled means afforded by Johnny-come-lately ----the biological male. Driving this point home, biologist William R. Clark tells us that, ala the book of Genesis, programmed death, that is, death guaranteed by a particular kind of birth, began with sex. Fellow biologist, Lynn Margulis, goes so far as to say that two-gendered sex upset the applecart of biological immortality (so to say) and gave rise to what she calls a sort of STD:

Death, the literal dis-integration of the husk of the body, was the grim price exacted by meiotic [bi-gendered] sexuality. Complex development in protoctists and their animal and plant descendants led to the evolution of death as a kind of sexually transmitted disease.​
Lynn Margulis, Symbiotic Planet, p. 90.​




John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Ironically, Mother Nature justifies all this. As pointed out by biologists, all living organisms began as what we would today consider females: they were able to reproduce without the newfangled means afforded by Johnny-come-lately ----the biological male. Driving this point home, biologist William R. Clark tells us that, ala the book of Genesis, programmed death, that is, death guaranteed by a particular kind of birth, began with sex. Fellow biologist, Lynn Margulis, goes so far as to say that two-gendered sex upset the applecart of biological immortality (so to say) and gave rise to what she calls a sort of STD:

Death, the literal dis-integration of the husk of the body, was the grim price exacted by meiotic [bi-gendered] sexuality. Complex development in protoctists and their animal and plant descendants led to the evolution of death as a kind of sexually transmitted disease.​
Lynn Margulis, Symbiotic Planet, p. 90.​

All of this lends itself to the premise that the strange new testament to the birth lineage of messiah (his matriarchal line going back to ha-adam, and his patriarchal line getting cut off, so to say, when Abraham cuts off the means for fathering sons the old fashioned way), justifies, in writing, the concept that messiah is the intended first born Jew (while the first unborn Jew ---prelapse ha-adam ---is the original Jewish mother able to birth a son from the get-go), and more importantly, that messiah was supposed to be the first born of the human race; ha-adam's first born son.



John
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If there was nothing wrong with the first covenant no place would have been sought for another. . . By calling the covenant "new" God has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear [2 Cor. 3:6].Hebrews 8:7-13.
A covenant is an agreement that could be violated, which is the scriptural account as to why Jews were banished to Babylon, So, after that punishment, the covenant is basically restored as long as Jewish Law was to be carefully observed.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
All of this lends itself to the premise that the strange new testament to the birth lineage of messiah (his matriarchal line going back to ha-adam, and his patriarchal line getting cut off, so to say, when Abraham cuts off the means for fathering sons the old fashioned way), justifies, in writing, the concept that messiah is the intended first born Jew (while the first unborn Jew ---prelapse ha-adam ---is the original Jewish mother able to birth a son from the get-go), and more importantly, that messiah was supposed to be the first born of the human race; ha-adam's first born son.

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.​
Colossians 1:15–17.​

The idea that the first human, ha-adam, is the Great Mother, the original Jewish mother, pregnant from the get-go with the first born of humanity, lends itself, if Colossians 1:15-17 is the context, to the Jewish idea of the shetiya stone, the "foundation stone" from which everything that is and ever will be, emanates. Reverse engineering the Jewish scriptures this way ties everything together in a manner that leads itself to the quintessential question come from the ultimate E.F. Hutton moment in the Gospels when a certain son of David asks the rabbis how it is that the Lord, in Psalms 110:1, calls David's messianic heir "Lord"?



John
 
Top