The Akedah aka the Binding of Isaac.

[Ebionite]

Then wouldn't you be wasting your time using Isaiah 6:9 as a proof-text to a Jew if that text is included in the proof provided in that text?

My post wasn't only for him.

 

[John D. Brey]

... a lamb which God did not provide. God instead provided a ram, but Abraham had to look again for it. That's the way the story is written.

Rabbi Hirsch is talking about a ram, not a lamb.

Agreed?

There's no reason to fluff up your thesis by misquoting Rabbi Hirsch, unless, your thesis is weak and you feel better fabricating a Rabbi's "blessing" for your work.

See, all serious input is valuable. I've gone back and changed the wording to "ram" not "lamb." And more than that, your being nit-picking about the distinction, forced me to try to figure out what's going on when Abraham and Isaac speak of a lamb, while the writer of the story says Abraham replaced his son (as a type of the lamb), not with an actual lamb, but with a ram (symbolizing, seemingly, not only an adult lamb, but a peace offering rather than a burnt offering).



John

 

[dybmh]

See, all serious input is valuable. I've gone back and changed the wording to "ram" not "lamb." And more than that, your being nit-picking about the distinction, forced me to try to figure out what's going on when Abraham and Isaac speak of a lamb, while the writer of the story says Abraham replaced his son (as a type of the lamb), not with an actual lamb, but with a ram (symbolizing, seemingly, not only an adult lamb, but a peace offering rather than a burnt offering).

You're welcome.

Next problem.

If the author had intended for Isaac to be the lamb then Abraham would not have said: "God will provide the lamb." He would have answered differently because, if Isaac was the lamb, that means God had already provided it.

See my dilemma?

 

[John D. Brey]

See, all serious input is valuable. I've gone back and changed the wording to "ram" not "lamb." And more than that, your being nit-picking about the distinction, forced me to try to figure out what's going on when Abraham and Isaac speak of a lamb, while the writer of the story says Abraham replaced his son (as a type of the lamb), not with an actual lamb, but with a ram (symbolizing, seemingly, not only an adult lamb, but a peace offering rather than a burnt offering).

In the same sense Rabbi Hirsch argues the sacrifice of the ram must be a more exalted sacrifice than the mere sacrifice of Isaac (not withstanding the stupendous nature of the sacrifice of Isaac), so too, logic and reasons dictate that since God isn't the author of confusion, therefore the giving of the greater sacrifice, the ram, without the actuality of the lesser sacrifice, Isaac, would be, what did Rav Hirsch say, "blasphemous, absurd."

. . . Abraham was told about the impending birth of Isaac being itself a sacrifice, since Abraham had already sacrificed himself when he performed circumcision on his own body. This was the reason that Ishmael boasted about his own מסירת הנפש, dedication to G-d, in having his father perform this operation on him without his objecting.​

​

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayera, Torah Ohr, 57 (bold emphasis mine).​

In the traditional understanding of circumcision, as found in places like the Zohar, et al., circumcising the male-organ signifies the willingness to sacrifice the father's firstborn since taking a knife to that organ prior to the wedding night can be read to signify offering up one's manhood, and thus one's ability to father the firstborn, resulting in the sacrifice of the firstborn even before he's conceived or born (Hebrews 10:5-10). In Shenei Luchot HaBerit, the Shelah HaKaddosh (Rav Isaiah Horowitz) makes note of the fact that "Abraham had already sacrificed himself when he performed circumcision on his own body." Abraham had already sacrificed his ability to father the firstborn, which sacrifices his own fleshly future, and sacrificed Isaac's too, in the one ritual emasculation fancied Abraham's great sacrifice, i.e., his circumcision.

In the ancient world, that is to say in the zeitgeist of Abraham and Sarah, barrenness was synonymous with death since without offspring Abraham and Sarah are as good as dead so far as a fleshly future ---through offspring ---is concerned. In that light, its difficult to deny that taking a knife to the male-organ, through which offspring, and thus a future existence (through genetic procreation) must come, is tantamount to sacrificing one's own future existence on the altar of the sandek. In this light, the Shelah HaKaddosh says that Abraham had already sacrificed himself by means of ritual emasculation, i.e., circumcision, which is the death of his ability to produce, and thus the death of the mundane reality of his firstborn son (Isaac as it were).

Ergo, the Akedah, as the sacrifice of Isaac, is a foregone conclusion, so to say, since Abraham has already offered Isaac by means of his own ritual emasculation (sacrificing his ability, i.e., the organ through which he father's his firstborn, prior to the conception of his firstborn). Isaac's miraculous birth, despite Abraham's ritual emasculation, and thus a conception without semen, dictates, so to say, his impending sacrifice (Hebrews 10:5-10).

When Abraham was about to slaughter Isaac, the latter's soul flew away to be replaced later by a holy spirit from the Celestial Regions. It follows then that Isaac's life after the עקדה, was the life of a human being who had not originated from a drop of semen. We must view Isaac as someone born-again in consequence of that experience: a totally new creature. G-d had applied the strictest yardstick to him by letting him die, and subsequently by infusing him with a new soul. He had also sanctified his body; from that time on Isaac's body resembled that of אדם הראשון, also not the product of a drop of semen. Now we understand also why the ram which Abraham sacrificed in lieu of Isaac was not the product of natural procreation, i.e. through semen, but was created during the period of dusk on the sixth day of Creation as reported in Avot 5,6.​

​

Ibid. Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayera, Torah Ohr, 46 (bold emphasis mine).​

​

Justifying what's been said about Abraham's circumcision signifying the sacrifice of Isaac's birth, the Shelah HaKaddosh, that is, Rav Isaiah Horowitz, points out that spiritually speaking, the sacrifice of Isaac (ala Abraham's circumcision) means Isaac's body is "holy" for having come without the drop of semen that's cut off through ritual emasculation, brit milah. Rav Horowitz notes that the ram sacrificed in celebration of Isaac's sacrifice is also supra-mundane. It, too, the ram, is also produced without semen according to Horowitz. In the Shelah HaKadoosh's reasoning, Isaac is born-again since he died, symbolically, ritually, at the circumcision of his father Abraham, and therefore receives a virgin soul associated with his virgin credentials, his conception through non-phallic means (since his father sacrificed the means of conceiving Isaac the old-fashioned way --a drop of semen ---when he circumcised himself).



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Next problem.

If the author had intended for Isaac to be the lamb then Abraham would not have said: "God will provide the lamb." He would have answered differently because, if Isaac was the lamb, that means God had already provided it.

See my dilemma?

Not really? If Isaac isn't the lamb, then it seems the narrative goes haywire. Where is the lamb God provides? It's not the animal Abraham actually sacrifices. That's a ram.




John

 

[dybmh]

Where is the lamb God provides?

God doesn't provide a lamb. God provided a ram caught in a thicket, but, Abraham had to look again to see it.

If Isaac isn't the lamb, then it seems the narrative goes haywire.

Why?

It's not the animal Abraham actually sacrifices. That's a ram.

Right. Have you considered that the significance of the word "lamb" is being exaggerated as a consequence of your religious beliefs?

 

[John D. Brey]

God doesn't provide a lamb. God provided a ram caught in a thicket, but, Abraham had to look again to see it. . . Have you considered that the significance of the word "lamb" is being exaggerated as a consequence of your religious beliefs?

I'm kinda lost. If I can't equate the word "lamb" שה with a "ram" אילֹ (as I was originally doing till you chided me), then it seems difficult to imply that Abraham gets to do what you chided me for doing, i.e., assuming a lamb and a ram are interchangeable? Can Abraham say,"God will provide the seh (shin-heh)," and then substitute a "ram" איל, and nobody notices or cares?

Are you implying it doesn't matter that Abraham says "lamb" when there isn't one readily visible in the account? If so, would it be ok if instead of a ram, he noticed a large locust, or a camel stuck in quicksand and substituted that for Isaac?

Wasn't your original point about me not being careful and exacting enough about these things?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

When Abraham was about to slaughter Isaac, the latter's soul flew away to be replaced later by a holy spirit from the Celestial Regions. It follows then that Isaac's life after the עקדה, was the life of a human being who had not originated from a drop of semen. We must view Isaac as someone born-again in consequence of that experience: a totally new creature. G-d had applied the strictest yardstick to him by letting him die, and subsequently by infusing him with a new soul. He had also sanctified his body; from that time on Isaac's body resembled that of אדם הראשון, also not the product of a drop of semen. Now we understand also why the ram which Abraham sacrificed in lieu of Isaac was not the product of natural procreation, i.e. through semen, but was created during the period of dusk on the sixth day of Creation as reported in Avot 5,6.​

​

Ibid. Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayera, Torah Ohr, 46 (bold emphasis mine).​

​

Justifying what's been said about Abraham's circumcision signifying the sacrifice of Isaac's birth, the Shelah HaKaddosh, that is, Rav Isaiah Horowitz, points out that spiritually speaking, the sacrifice of Isaac (ala Abraham's circumcision) means Isaac's body is "holy" for having come without the drop of semen that's cut off through ritual emasculation, brit milah. Rav Horowitz notes that the ram sacrificed in celebration of Isaac's sacrifice is also supra-mundane. It, too, the ram, is also produced without semen according to Horowitz. In the Shelah HaKadosh's reasoning, Isaac is born-again since he died, symbolically, ritually, at the circumcision of his father Abraham, and therefore receives a virgin soul associated with his virgin credentials, his conception through non-phallic means (since his father sacrificed the means of conceiving Isaac the old-fashioned way --a drop of semen ---when he circumcised himself).

Isaac, however, was the spiritual equivalent of Adam before his sin, since he was the first person who was both conceived and born by parents who had sanctified themselves. The removal of Abraham's foreskin repaired the damage Adam had done by sinning and acquiring a קליפה, husk (symbol of sin). Our sages expressed this by saying that אדם הראשון משוך בערלתו, Adam pulled, i.e. disguised, the fact that he had no foreskin, as distinct from Isaac, sanctified (from birth), who became the equivalent of first man who had been formed by G–d from holy soil.​

​

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayera, Torah Ohr, 45. ​

Since Adam wasn't born, but created, it would be more accurate to say Isaac is representative of Adam's firstborn had Adam not undergone the sex-change in Genesis 2:21 through which he acquires the so called "husk" קליפה that's a symbol of sin:

The acceptance of the Phallus is immoral. It has always been thought of as hateful; it has been the image of Satan, and Dante made it the central pillar of hell.​

Otto Weininger, Sex and Character.​

What was added to Adam's body in Genesis 2:21, i.e., the first male-organ, manhood itself, Abraham ritually removes prior to Isaac's birth. In this sense, Isaac is the type, the ritual symbol, of a firstborn male born conceived without the organ associated with "foreskin," which "foreskin," is little more than a symbol of what it represents: uncircumcision. "Uncircumcision," is toxic-masculinity itself. Which is to say that the foreskin is merely the emblem of the "maleness" that the first human, ha-adam, didn't possess (or which didn't possess him) prior to the time when his name was changed from the generic "human" (ha-adam) to the masculine "Adam," associated with the original sin.

To some degree, circumcision restored Abraham and his descendants to the status of Adam before his sin. . . Through Milah [circumcision] it would be possible to return to the level of Adam . . . before the sin. In other words, mankind would again have direct access to the spiritual dimension.​

​

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Handbook of Jewish Thought, p. 39, 47; Inner Space, p. 166.​

Rabbi Horowitz realizes that Isaac represents this return, by means of the first circumcised conception, to a time prior to the desecration of the first human's body as that desecration takes place in Genesis 2:21. Had the first human not become the first male, the first case of toxic-masculinity, then this first human, singularly, rather than through phallic sex, would have conceived Isaac, or his archetype, prior to the manufacture of Eve. Eve is manufactured as part and parcel of ha-adam's sex change (as a place to park his new appendage). Had Isaac's prototype been born prior to the Genesis 2:21 fiasco, then Eve would never have been manufactured.

The Shelah HaKaddosh (Horowitz), channeling these truths (in the very next tractate of his exposition ---46), points out that the holiness of Isaac’s unique birth is put into effect by its not coming about by means of a single drop of semen. There was no semen contaminating Isaac's birth, which semen is the catalyst, the transfer-mechanism, contaminating all phallic pregnancies with the toxic masculinity Isaac’s birth aborts through a pregnancy conceived without a drop of semen: "It follows then that Isaac's life . . . was the life of a human being who had not originated from a drop of semen."



John

 

[John D. Brey]

​

The Shelah HaKaddosh (Horowitz), channeling these truths (in the very next tractate of his exposition ---46), points out that the holiness of Isaac’s unique birth is put into effect by its not coming about by means of a single drop of semen. There was no semen contaminating Isaac's birth, which semen is the catalyst, the transfer-mechanism, contaminating all phallic pregnancies with the toxic masculinity Isaac’s birth aborts through a pregnancy conceived without a drop of semen: "It follows then that Isaac's life . . . was the life of a human being who had not originated from a drop of semen."

The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘If you become circumcised, you will receive the secret [sod] of the Lord' . . Due to the merit of circumcision . . . as it is stated: “The secret [sod] of the Lord is [revealed] to those who fear Him.”​

​

Bereshis Rabbah, 49:2.​

The secret of the Lord is revealed to those who fear him, and circumcision is the proof that they fear him, such that those who circumcise themselves exhibit the fear necessary to receive the secret of the Lord.

10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me​

​

Genesis 22:10–12.​

By ritually cutting the organ through which the "drop of semen" conceiving Isaac would come, Abraham's circumcision represents the sacrifice of Abraham's life (his carnal future through offspring) and thus the life of his firstborn son Isaac, such that the question arises as to why the angel of the Lord states that he now knows Abraham "fears God" when the circumcision of Abraham's fathering-organ should have already exemplified that:

The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘If you become circumcised, you will receive the secret [sod] of the Lord' . . Due to the merit of circumcision . . . as it is stated: “The secret [sod] of the Lord is [revealed] to those who fear Him.”​

​

Bereshis Rabbah, 49:2.​

Abraham is circumcised so that we know he fears the Lord. So why does the angel of the Lord only register Abraham's fear of the Lord at the Akedah and not at the circumcision that presages the Akedah? Furthermore, why, if Abraham's circumcision represents the sacrifice of the firstborn, does Abraham have to literally sacrifice the firstborn? And why if circumcision represents the sacrifice of the firstborn, and the Akedah represents the sacrifice of the firstborn, does neither of these sacrifices suffice to lead to the death of the sacrificial limb, lad, or lamb? Abraham and Isaac speak of a lamb (a burnt offering) while what is eventually offered is a ram, that is, a peace offering.

What made Abraham think he was supposed to offer up the ram (v. 13) as a replacement for his son?​

​

Abarbanel.​

Rabbi Hirsch answers Abarbanel that the ram wasn't a replacement for Isaac since in Rabbi Hirsch's thinking that would be as absurd and blasphemous as someone giving you a million dollars so that you reach out and grab a shiny string stuck on a thorn bush and offer it as recompense for the million dollars. Hirsch is clear that the ram is symbolic of something that's even more important than the actual offering of Isaac (who symbolizes a lamb). But what on earth could be more valuable than the offering of Isaac. (For what it's worth, the Shelah HaKaddosh spends no small verbiage showing that Abraham fancies the sacrifice of Isaac as the most important and valuable thing in his life.) Abarbanel's follow up question starts down the path toward answering how the offering of the ram can be greater than the sacrifice of Isaac:

Where does Abraham come off announcing that "the Lord will see," which is what "Adonai-yireh" (v. 14) literally means? [And] Why is that site not actually called "Adonai-yireh" neither in 2 Chron. 3:1 (where it is called "Mount Moriah") nor anywhere else?​

In 2 Chronicles 3:1, the mountain is not only called "Moriah," as noted by Abarbanel, but in the context of the verse, "Moriah" means the place "chosen by Jehovah." In the context of 2 Chronicles 3:1, "Moriah" is, and means, the place chosen by Jehovah to appear to David. Perhaps an even more literal translation of Genesis 22:14 must be based on the undeniable wording not only 2 Chronicles 3:1 (Jehovah appearing to David), but also Genesis 22:13-14, where Abraham is said to "lift up his eyes" to behold the ram, such that, as the context implies, for that reason he names the place: "where they [Abraham and Isaac] saw Jehovah (literally, יהוה יראה "Jehovah they see").

If this be the case, then in Rabbi Hirsch's logic, the greatness of the offering of the ram is that in some sense it equates to Abraham and Isaac "seeing," the self-same theophany (a vision of Jehovah), and in the same place, that David saw a theophany of Jehovah (2 Chronicles 3:1). This puts the difficulty that causes Jewish tradition to not want to see what Abraham and David saw on this mountain (so that they translate "the Lord saw," rather than that the Lord is seen) in the crosshairs of this examination: in what way is seeing the ram offered at the Akedah tantamount to seeing God?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

​

If this be the case, then in Rabbi Hirsch's logic, the greatness of the offering of the ram is that in some sense it equates to Abraham and Isaac "seeing," the self-same theophany (a vision of Jehovah), and in the same place, that David saw a theophany of Jehovah (2 Chronicles 3:1). This puts the difficulty that causes Jewish tradition to not want to see what Abraham and David saw on this mountain (so that they translate "the Lord saw," rather than that the Lord is seen) in the crosshairs of this examination: in what way is seeing the ram offered at the Akedah tantamount to seeing God?

Someone will say, But the text literally says: "Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering instead of his son" (Genesis 22:13). Case closed! ----Nevertheless, Rashi notes that some translations omit an important word found in Genesis 22:13: תחת. In the KJV, the Hebrew word "tahat" תחת is translated "instead," as in "instead of his son." Rabbi Hirsch briefly notes this oddity too, since in truth the word means "beneath." Abraham offers the ram beneath his son. The word probably implies "after" his son (he offers his son as a burnt offering such that one could say he goes up in smoke, and then beneath that smoke Abraham offers the ram as a peace offering, a thank you to God for accepting the offering of Isaac. As Rabbi Hirsch argues, the offering of the ram can't be "instead" of Issac since it would be absurd and blasphemous to think that rather than offering something so precious and important as Isaac, it will suffice to "instead" offer a wild beast, caught in a thicket, as though it would have the same value.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Someone will say, But the text literally says: "Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering instead of his son" (Genesis 22:13). Case closed! ----Nevertheless, Rashi notes that some translations omit an important word found in Genesis 22:13: תחת. In the KJV, the Hebrew word "tahat" תחת is translated "instead," as in "instead of his son." Rabbi Hirsch briefly notes this oddity too, since in truth the word means "beneath." Abraham offers the ram beneath his son. The word probably implies "after" his son (he offers his son as a burnt offering such that one could say he goes up in smoke, and then beneath that smoke Abraham offers the ram as a peace offering, a thank you to God for accepting the offering of Isaac. As Rabbi Hirsch argues, the offering of the ram can't be "instead" of Issac since it would be absurd and blasphemous to think that rather than offering something so precious and important as Isaac, it will suffice to "instead" offer a wild beast, caught in a thicket, as though it would have the same value.

Appreciating the sacrifice of the ram as a peace offering directs the focus back to the sacrifice of Isaac as the "lamb" (i.e., the burnt offering). The offering of the ram isn't a replacement for the sacrifice of Isaac, but a celebration of the fact that God accepts Isaac as a burnt offering such that when Abraham names the place "Jehovah they see" (יהוה יראה) the narrative naturally draws the reader into the question of how the Akedah equates to seeing the Lord?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Appreciating the sacrifice of the ram as a peace offering directs the focus back to the sacrifice of Isaac as the "lamb" (i.e., the burnt offering). The offering of the ram isn't a replacement for the sacrifice of Isaac, but a celebration of the fact that God accepts Isaac as a burnt offering such that when Abraham names the place "Jehovah they see" (יהוה יראה) the narrative naturally draws the reader into the question of how the Akedah equates to seeing the Lord?

It follows then that Isaac's life after the עקדה, was the life of a human being who had not originated from a drop of semen. We must view Isaac as someone born-again in consequence of that experience: a totally new creature. G-d had applied the strictest yardstick to him by letting him die, and subsequently by infusing him with a new soul. He had also sanctified his body; from that time on Isaac's body resembled that of אדם הראשון, also not the product of a drop of semen.​

​

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayera, Torah Ohr, 46 (bold emphasis mine).​

The statement above forms a peculiar Gestalt-shift ("ambiguous image" or "reversible image") since what Rav Horowitz speaks of as Isaac's post-Akedah life is actually the spiritually pure status Isaac's pre-Akedah life would have to meet in order for God to accept him as an "unblemished" offering by Abraham. Rav Horowitz (the Shelah HaKaddosh) implies that Isaac is "born-again" (or reborn) by means of a conception process ---post-Akedah ----that cuts off the drop of semen associated with his natural or profane conception and birth. The Shelah HaKaddosh pictures Isaac's post-Akedah conception and rebirth as affected by means of a process free of semen, that is to say, from a emasculated pregnancy, a circumspect conception, which is undeniably a circumcised conception and pregnancy.

The physical body of Isaac, who had been born of semen, was also replaced with sacred flesh [after the Akdedah].​

​

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayera, Torah Ohr, 69.​

The Shelah HaKaddosh's explanation of Isaac's post-Akedah conception and rebirth is precisely what Isaac's pre-Akedah conception and birth is supposed to at least "symbolize" since Abraham ritually emasculates himself, i.e., his circumcision (bleeding the fathering-organ so it's incapable of supplying even a drop of semen) prior to Isaac's first conception and birth. In this way, Isaac is ritually transformed (at the first birth) into a fitting, spiritually pure, that is to say "unblemished," sacrificial organ.

What we appear to see in the Shelah HaKaddosh's interpretation of the Akedah, notwithstanding its undeniable brilliance, is exegesis clearly motivated by cognitive dissonance arising from the severe theological discomfort associated with seeing Abraham's circumcision prior to Isaac's natural birth, and thus Isaac's natural birth too, as merely emblematic, symbolic, of what the sacrifice of Isaac is supposed to turn Isaac into post death and resurrection at the Akedah.

The same discomfort associated with seeing Abraham’s circumcision as merely symbolic is directly related to the forced realization that Isaac’s sacrifice too is symbolic of something it, the ritual or symbolic sacrifice of Isaac (i.e., the Akedah) is not, in itself. Which segues directly into Abraham's thinking of the place of the sacrifice, his naming of the place of the sacrifice, יהוה יראה, a the mountain where he and Isaac, "see the Lord" as the full reality only symbolized through Abraham’s ritual circumcision and Isaac’s symbolic-sacrifice.

Because of his traditional mooring, the Shelah HaKaddosh finds it difficult or impossible to separate the ritual element of Isaac's first birth, which makes him qualify as an "unblemished" sacrifice to God, from his post-sacrifice resurrected purity, which, irony beyond irony, the Shelah HaKaddosh associates with being born-again, or reborn, without the "drop of semen" Horowitz seems to realize would (the drop of semen would) eliminate any human from possessing the status of "unblemished." In effect, the Shelah HaKaddosh must know on some level of conceptualism that Abraham's circumcision at least symbolizes Isaac being born without the drop of semen Horowitz shows he knows renders Isaac imperfect like everyone else born the old-fashioned way (by means of an intact fathering-organ).

To cut to the chase, the Shelah HaKaddosh clearly realizes that Isaac would have to be conceived actually, rather than ritually, without a "drop of semen," before he would qualify for the sacrifice Rav Horowitz's exegesis wants to position --Gestalt-shift and all ----as the means of Isaac being pure and born-again (without semen). The purity required for Isaac as an unblemished sacrifice to God is merely visualized, theorized, ritualized, in these latter days even fetishized, by means of Abraham's "ritual" emasculation/circumcision.



John

 

[Elihoenai]

Genesis 6:12

12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Matthew 18:18

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Christian Gnosticism is the Original Teaching of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ that the Earth/Flesh is Corrupt.


Gnosticism

"...Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with the biblical deity Yahweh)[1] who is responsible for creating the material universe. Consequently, Gnostics considered material existence flawed or evil, and held the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the hidden divinity, attained via mystical or esoteric insight...."

Gnosticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[John D. Brey]

Genesis 6:12

12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Matthew 18:18

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Christian Gnosticism is the Original Teaching of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ that the Earth/Flesh is Corrupt.


Gnosticism

"...Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with the biblical deity Yahweh)[1] who is responsible for creating the material universe. Consequently, Gnostics considered material existence flawed or evil, and held the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the hidden divinity, attained via mystical or esoteric insight...."

The first verse you quoted appears to imply that the "flesh" was (ala prelapse ha-adam) not originally corrupted? Secondarily, in traditional Christian doctrine, Jesus is, because of his virgin birth (which eliminates the seed of the serpent) not yet corrupted. In both cases, the flesh isn't originally corrupt. Lastly, in traditional Christianity, even the devil/serpent was originally an angle of light. It wasn't until he decided he would be like the most high that he fell from his lofty perfection.

Which is all to point out that to the degree Gnosticism considers the binary duality between good and evil, material versus spiritual, original, rather than something come about because of the serpent coming, so to say . . . to that degree Gnosticism might be, notwithstanding much that's clearly correct, somewhat contrary to the natural reading of the word of God.




John

 

[Elihoenai]

The first verse you quoted appears to imply that the "flesh" was (ala prelapse ha-adam) not originally corrupted? Secondarily, in traditional Christian doctrine, Jesus is, because of his virgin birth (which eliminates the seed of the serpent) not yet corrupted. In both cases, the flesh isn't originally corrupt. Lastly, in traditional Christianity, even the devil/serpent was originally an angle of light. It wasn't until he decided he would be like the most high that he fell from his lofty perfection.

Which is all to point out that to the degree Gnosticism considers the binary duality between good and evil, material versus spiritual, original, rather than something come about because of the serpent coming, so to say . . . to that degree Gnosticism might be, notwithstanding much that's clearly correct, somewhat contrary to the natural reading of the word of God.




John

Galatians 5:17

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

1 Corinthians 15:50

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.


I mean Christian Gnosticism is the Original Teaching of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ that has been Lost through the Domination of Roman Catholicism. The Origin of the Flesh is the Devil's/Satan's Rebellion Against Elohim/God. Flesh is Corruption. The War Between the Spirit and the Flesh is the War between Good and Evil. Christian Gnosticism is All About this Dualist War that is Within and Without the Practitioner.


Gnosticism, the Enduring Heresy