• 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!

Virginity: The Pregnant Metaphor.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Since time immemorial virginity has always been the most rotund, well-rounded, metaphor, for the imminent arrival of whatever it was, is, that religious thought has always been preparing itself to receive? Though it might sound oxymoronic to speak of virginity as a pregnant metaphor, the thought is far from moronic. On the contrary, though it sounds ultra strange, we can literally do something like an ultra-sound on the Tanakh to see what's bursting at the seams at the end of Malachi just before the opening of Matthew.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Since time immemorial virginity has always been the most rotund, well-rounded, metaphor, for the imminent arrival of whatever it was, is, that religious thought has always been preparing itself to receive? Though it might sound oxymoronic to speak of virginity as a pregnant metaphor, the thought is far from moronic. On the contrary, though it sounds ultra strange, we can literally do something like an ultra-sound on the Tanakh to see what's bursting at the seams at the end of Malachi just before the opening of Matthew.

As the Zohar [Be-Ha'alotekha 3:152a] says: "The Torah has a garment, a body, and a soul. The fools of the world see only the garment; those with more understanding do not look at the garment, but see the body that is beneath the garment. The wise servants of the supreme King who stood at Sinai saw only the soul, which is the essence of the Torah. In time to come, they will perceive the `the soul of soul' of the Torah, as it says `Your Teacher will no longer be hidden behind His garment, and Your eyes will behold your Teacher' (Yeshayah 30:20)."​
Nefesh Hachaim, p. 188.​

As laid out in the quotation from the Zohar found in Nefesh Hachaim, something is hidden even from the wise servants of the supreme king who stood at Sinai. While at best, the hoi polloi see only the outer garment of God, the wise servants are said to have seen the "soul" of the supreme King. Nevertheless, everything important in the quotation from the Zohar rests on the final part of the statement that notes that in times to come, some newfangled kind of perception of the supreme King will transcend, and perhaps transgress, the vision of the the supreme King the wise were able to spy on Sinai.

In time to come, the most unified image of the supreme King will be visible since it will no longer be hidden behind His garment, and purportedly beneath His body. But to speak of "seeing" God beneath the written text that garments the Torah, and also seeing deeper still, that is to say beneath the naked body of the Torah (gufei Torah), sets up the strangely paradoxical concept of seeing the invisible soul of the Torah in a manner such that it's become manifest in a material manner assimilated to a vision or seeing of what's otherwise the quintessence of the essence of soul, i.e., invisible-ness. The Zohar speaks of this visible soul in a gross tautology, "the soul of soul," since the concept of an incarnate-soul (a visible soul) is a bridge too far for orthodox Judaism to cross (so to say).



John
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
Interestingly, many of the pre-Abrahamic and early historic religions focused very much on the ideal and image of pregnancy, and fertility, and not on chastity or virginity. The latter seems to be an exclusive virtue of patriarchy, and of the gods of abstractmale ideals. Whereas before that, when the gods were more natural and immediate expressions of life and survival, divinity was feminine, life-giving, cyclical and self-sustaining.

And look where this abstract, patriarchal concept of divinity has taken us. Especially in relation to the cradle of all life: 'Mother' Earth.
 

Yokefellow

Active Member
Current definitions of Soul are vague...

Strong's Hebrew 5315: Nephesh
Definition: a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion



Is it possible to mark out what a Soul is so that we may understand it better? I believe the answer is yes.

Here we see that a Soul can exist outside of the Body and return again...

1 Kings 17:21
"And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again."

1 Kings 17:22

"And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived."

The Spirit can exist outside of the Body as well...

Ecclesiastes 12:7
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."


Strong's Hebrew 7307: Ruach
Definition: breath, wind, spirit



Thus, when a creature passes away, they lose the Body, but they retain the Spirit and Soul.

Something similar happens with Torah. If we view the Torah as Body, Soul and Spirit, we have something like this...
  • Torah Scroll Parchment: Body
  • Torah Scroll Writing: Soul
  • Torah Scroll Teaching: Spirit
It is a Trinity. If something were to happen to the Parchment, i.e., the Body perishes, the Writing (Soul) and Teaching (Spirit) can still remain in the Tables of the Hearts of others.

Here we see the word 'Teach' associated with 'Spirit'...

Psalms 143:10
"Teach me to do thy will; for thou art my God: thy spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness."


Of course, Christians believe this as well...

1 Corinthians 2:13
"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."


If we utilize the Microcosm of Life to double check our research, we have a match...
  • Torah Scroll Parchment: Body = Flesh
  • Torah Scroll Writing: Soul = Genomic Information
  • Torah Scroll Teaching: Spirit = Electrons, Electronic Communication, Energy, Wisdom, etc.
And there we have it. Now we know why Soul is tied to so many psychological things. The Genome of any creature determines a major portion of its personality. It may produce a creature of intense animalistic/carnal behavior, or it may produce a Gentile creature. :)
 
Last edited:

Yokefellow

Active Member
And look where this abstract, patriarchal concept of divinity has taken us. Especially in relation to the cradle of all life: 'Mother' Earth.

The 'Powers That Be' worship Mother Earth, i.e., Mystery Babylon, the Harlot. 'She' is in charge now.

So yeah...

Look where that has taken us.

The point of 'patriarchal concept of divinity' as you so put it, is for Men to finally take charge and run things for once.

 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Interestingly, many of the pre-Abrahamic and early historic religions focused very much on the ideal and image of pregnancy, and fertility, and not on chastity or virginity.

Where this thread is heading is precisely back to an ancient past when fertility and chastity/virginity were the same thing.

The latter seems to be an exclusive virtue of patriarchy, and of the gods of abstract male ideals. Whereas before that, when the gods were more natural and immediate expressions of life and survival, divinity was feminine, life-giving, cyclical and self-sustaining.

Ala Philo, "male," or "masculinity," is associated with invisible soul, while materiality is associated with what's matriarchal. The phallus is demonic-flesh precisely because it represents material, fleshly, maleness or masculinity, which is the no no that led to the original sin.




John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
If we view the Torah as Body, Soul and Spirit, we have something like this...
  • Torah Scroll Parchment: Body
  • Torah Scroll Writing: Soul
  • Torah Scroll Teaching: Spirit

I think the Zoharic sages consider the scroll the body, the writing on the scroll the garment, and the soul what's beneath the scroll and the writing. People look at fashionable interpretations of the writing on the scroll and think they're seeing the Torah. Others, the wise servants of the supreme King, get to see the Torah naked (they see beneath the mundane stories writ large with what a pen is); and they might think they're thus prepared to have intercourse with it. But from what we can piece together from other places in the Zohar, the idea seems to be that the intercourse they might have with the Torah is kil'ayim (a prohibited mixing of unlike things) since the wise servants are nevertheless bi-gendered beings created from bi-gendered sex, while the supreme King is not, making intercourse between the two kil'ayim, prohibited, unless we can find a way that the intercourse can take place without succumbing to the prohibition against unlawful mixing?



John
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
The 'Powers That Be' worship Mother Earth, i.e., Mystery Babylon, the Harlot. 'She' is in charge now.

So yeah...

Look where that has taken us.

The point of 'patriarchal concept of divinity' as you so put it, is for Men to finally take charge and run things for once.

Men don’t nurture, they compete. So when men run things, they tend to run them into the ground. it is their nature to seek excess. To stand out. To gain and hold onto control.

None of these are traits of true leadership. They are selfish and hedonistic.
 

Yokefellow

Active Member
...unless we can find a way that the intercourse can take place without succumbing to the prohibition against unlawful mixing?

That is a really good point. In fact, it may be the most important issue ever.

From my perspective, the kil'ayim is directly referring to Genetic Engineering and God Eugenics...


I believe the Israelites were being trained for the task of correcting the corrupt genetics of Earth. This was a huge responsibility going all the way back to our original purpose for being created in the first place...

Genesis 2:5
"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."


The phrase 'till the ground' is in context with this verse...

Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."


When we put the two concepts together, we discover that 'tilling the ground' is a metaphor for creating people and life in general from scratch.

God tilled the ground in order to create Adam. Later we see God tilling the ground again to create animals...

Genesis 2:19
"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."


The Forbidden Fruit was a test to see if we could handle having the same power as God to create life. We failed, so now we have to learn the hard way that God's Kingdom (i.e., his Book of Life Genetic Codes) are to be considered holy and sacred.

And because of the temptation to create all kinds of strange hybrids (like before the Flood), God came up with certain rules on how his DNA code should be handled.

Note some of the fine print...

Torah law forbids the wearing of Kil'ayim (shatnez) – sheep wool and linen fabrics that have been hackled together, or spun and woven together. Likewise, "intertying" sheep wool and linen together is forbidden, the two exceptions being garments of kohanim worn in the Temple and tzitzit.

You already have some great threads about the Tzitzit. There is definitely something there that has to do with mingling and correcting DNA.

There are also the garments of the Kohanim (Temple Priests)...

The 28th and 29th chapters of the Book of Exodus describe in detail the ritual clothing worn by priests in the Temple. The robes consist of a breastplate (hoshen), an ephod, a robe (me'il), a tunic (ketonet), a cap (mitznefet), and a sash (avnet), as well as stones worn in various configurations.


It is of no surprise that the garments are an exception. That is because the Tabernacles and Temples represent Eukaryotic Cells and Zygotes where the mingling of Seed takes place...

mhp-0707.png
mhp-0709.png

The High Priest's Breastplate contains gemstones representing Nitrogenous Bases of DNA. We inherited some of that Seed from the Serpent...

Ezekiel 28:13
"Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created."


The so called 'Covering' that the Serpent had represent Nucleobases. They now 'cover' the Mercy Seat (Nucleolus) in all life. Sadly, the Israelites could never figure this all out and fix the mess we are still in.

Ezekiel's Temple looks like it was going to be the place where the actual Genetic Engineering was going to take place with the supervision of God to make sure we had the 'secret sauce' to upgrade the code...

Ezekiel 47:12
"And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine."


The so called 'medicine' is the DNA upgrade that God was willing to gift to us. We were that close to Paradise.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Men don’t nurture, they compete. So when men run things, they tend to run them into the ground. it is their nature to seek excess. To stand out. To gain and hold onto control. . . None of these are traits of true leadership. They are selfish and hedonistic.

You statements here are worthy of a thread in themselves since if we're true to the science of the topic, there isn't really a separate category "male" like there is "female." Every living thing began, and remains for the most part, female. What you address as "men" or "male" is really, if we're true to science, merely a subcategory of female since males evolved from females. There's no scientific ontology for masculinity or male as there is for female. The Masoretic Text that implies male first, and female second, is a distortion of the actual signature text of the Hebrew Torah. The MT makes its interpretation of the evolution of gender (in the first three chapters of the Torah) both unscientific and factually false. Praise God we live in a time when the MT can be proven inaccurate and corrected.

The meat of your statement (so to say) is theologically important. The excesses, to include selfishness and hedonism, that you note, are the results of the supercharging of the female brain in the process (flooding the female brain with the hormone testosterone) of transforming the female into the masculine version of the female. Though you're completely on target with your critique of the negative results of this supercharging of the female brain, you seem to assume there's no meaningful or theological point in the supercharging of the female brain.

In H.G. Well's, The Time Machine, the time traveler arrives at a future epoch when the negative effects of testosterone have been eliminated so that everyone sits around like woke old women talking and crocheting until the alarm goes off at the Morlock's feeding time at which point the testosterone-less ladies succumb to the Morlock's dinner bell.

According to one of the most testosterone-enhanced brains the world has ever known, which is to say the mind of Saul of Tarsus, the male version of the female brain is enhanced not just so men can fight and war against one another, but for a more important purpose: so that humans can hold their own against the Principalities and Powers of the air who are the New Testament version of the Morlocks in H.G. Well's story. The same testosterone that made Rod Taylor have the hots for Yvette Mimieux, gave him the gonads, the cajones, to throw the Morlocks a real good beating. Godforbid we continue careening toward a time when the average "male" no longer wants to get in Yvette Mimieux's pants. Any good that will come of it will be seriously offset by our becoming brunch for the rulers of the air and the god of this world.

1704476878552.png




John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
John D Brey said:
...unless we can find a way that the intercourse can take place without succumbing to the prohibition against unlawful mixing?
That is a really good point. In fact, it may be the most important issue ever. . . From my perspective, the kil'ayim is directly referring to Genetic Engineering and God Eugenics. . . I believe the Israelites were being trained for the task of correcting the corrupt genetics of Earth. This was a huge responsibility going all the way back to our original purpose for being created in the first place...

I've quoted Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan too many times to count pointing out that in some sense the practice of circumcision ritualizes a return to the status of Adam before the first sin: "To some degree, circumcision restored Abraham and his descendants to the status of Adam before his sin" (Handbook of Jewish Thought, p. 47). If we picture cutting and bleeding that particular flesh as a ritual emasculation, then the return to the status of the human before the sin is also a return to the original (female) body of the first human prior to the addition of the novel flesh that occurs when the human (ha-adam) has flesh sutured shut סגר (in Gen. 2:21) creating the first penile-raphe. That's all covered in detail in former threads like Notre ha-aDam[e].

Understood in the context of the exegesis found in these past threads, circumcision pictures the removal of the tree of knowledge from the tree of life. This statement can be confusing since the phallus is fancied the tree of life, the branch that causes life to arise when it's combined with what's purported to be the tree of knowledge ידע (i.e., the source of sexual experience, the female body). Professor Gershom Scholem has been quoted pointing out that in the Fall, polarities got reversed creating the muddle that's the current state of the world:

The primal flaw must be mended so that all things can return to their proper place, to their original posture. Man and God are partners in this enterprise. . . The predicament of Israel, then, is not a historical accident but inherent in the world's being, and it is in Israel's power to repair the universal flaw.​
Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, p. 46.​

This universal flaw is symbolized by the fleshly-phallus which is the poster-child for kil'ayim. The fleshly-phallus symbolizes biological-masculinity when masculinity, in its ontology, is invisible/immaterial deity (ala Philo). By positing the mixing of immateriality/deity (i.e. living soul) with biological flesh ----as though they're now one entity (rather than two) -- the phallus transgresses kil'ayim and represents the most fundamental sin associated with kil'ayim.

Brit Milah (ritual circumcision) represents the destruction of fleshly-masculinity, removing it from the physical body, thus returning the body to its original, holy, state, as the original tree of life (the virgin female flesh), which segues nicely into the title of this thread, Virginity: The Pregnant Metaphor.:)

Genesis 2:5
"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."


The phrase 'till the ground' is in context with this verse...

Correct exegesis of Genesis 2:5 is crucial to making sense of these things. The narrative's key point is that the plant of the field was created coterminous with the earth. The plant already was, before it came out of the earth. The plant was in the earth, hidden, from the very creation of the earth. The seeds weren't placed in "tilled" earth, as is the case with post-lapsarian farming (to include post-lapsarian tilling of the female body to raise biological offspring). Prior to the lapse, i.e., Genesis 2:21 and the sin that comes of it, the earth already (prior to tilling) had plants inside it awaiting a time to "spring" as nazarenes נצרות from the virgin soil.

Likewise, the holy tree of life, ha-adam's female body prior to the lapse, was created already pregnant with the son of man, the son of God. Ha-adam's virgin body, like the pre-lapsarian earth, didn't require a till, a tiller, or a phallus/spade to open up the flesh/earth for the seed to go in. The seed was already there. And it didn't require fertilization. Tilling and fertilization weren't required until the expulsion from the garden. The virgin earth, and the virgin human (ha-adam) were created pregnant and ready to produce their genet, their clonal colonies.

Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."


When we put the two concepts together, we discover that 'tilling the ground' is a metaphor for creating people and life in general from scratch.

God tilled the ground in order to create Adam. Later we see God tilling the ground again to create animals...

God "forms" the human from the "dust" of the ground. God doesn't till the ground. No tilling occurs until ha-adam is fitted with a spade (Gen. 2:21). And we're naturally calling a spade a spade. :)

The Hindu who, embracing his wife, declares that she is Earth and he Heaven is at the same time fully conscious of his humanity and hers. The Austroasiatic cultivator who uses the same word, "lak," to designate phallus and spade . . . knows perfectly well that his spade is an instrument . . . and that in tilling his field he performs agricultural work . . ..​
Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, p. 166-167.​

Exegeted carefully, I'm not sure Genesis 2:7 claims God forms man "from" the dust of the ground. The Hebrew can be interpreted to say God forms man fresh/new עפר to come out of מן the ground. Rather than tilling the ground to place his seed in the earth, as Adam tills Eve's ground to place his seed in her after the sin, God instead formed ha-adam at the same time he formed the earth and the plants. God breaths his son, the breath and bread of life, into the mouth of ha-adam, which is to say into an orifice originally created open such that no closed, intact, virginal membrane, need be tilled, torn, or transgressed, in order for the seed of eternal life to enter inside. All genuine nazarim, or nazarenes, sprout from seed come thorugh the mouth and transferred into the ear: two orafices not fitted with a sealed-membrane signifying: Keep Out -- Trespassers will be Prosecuted to the Letter of the Law.

As the serpent is a trespasser in the garden of God, the flesh created in his image transgresses and trespasses through a fleshly membrane/curtain God placed to guard the most holy place in the middle of the garden of the human body. Anything transgressing that curtain from the outside in is demonic, while anything or one already inside the garden when it's created is part and parcel of the Son of God, the Shetiya Stone, from whence the garden and the world emanate that he might open the veil in the temple from the inside out.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
As the serpent is a trespasser in the garden of God, the flesh created in his image transgresses and trespasses through a fleshly membrane/curtain God placed to guard the most holy place in the middle of the garden of the human body. Anything transgressing that curtain from the outside in is demonic, while anything or one already inside the garden when it's created is part and parcel of the Son of God, the Shetiya Stone, from whence the garden and the world emanate that he might open the veil in the temple from the inside out.

Rabbi Yitsḥak said, “There is a membrane in the midst of the innards of the human body, partitioning below and above, drawing from above, issuing below. 749 Similarly the expanse is in the middle, resting upon those creatures below, separating upper from lower waters."​
The Pritzker Edition, The Zohar, Be-Re**** 1:32b.​

As noted by Professor Daniel Matt in The Pritzker Ediiton The Zohar, the "membrane" is directly related (by the zoharic sages) to the curtain separating the most holy place in the temple from the rest of creation (see note 751). In note 751, Professor Matt also points out that: "Here the curtain symbolizes Yesod."

Yesod is known as the "divine phallus," the sanctified version of the pagan Priapus. As such, and as noted in numerous threads in these parts, the "membrane" torn during the second phase of a ritual circumcision (periah), represents the same biological veil/membrane of virginity found on the intact female body prior to the original sin of opening that veil in the first instance of phallic sex.

As typologically designed or intended, both membranes are torn simultaneously in the first sinful act of sex that takes place after the chuppah, such that tearing the male's membrane eight days after birth, or under the chuppah (as etymology and history suggests is the typical case) implies that the membrane of virginity is torn on the male body prior to the first sinful act of sex such that in a parallel sense the ritual beg the tsaddik to imagine the same membrane on the female also being torn prior to the first act of phallic sex, and by the same nails in a Jewish male's hand (in this case from the inside out), wherein, and whereby, the crux of the symbolism is nakedly revealed to the serious exegete.

As a footnote, the orthodox Jewish circumciser, the mohel, sharpens the nails in his hand and uses nails in the hand as part and parcel of the symbolism of the ordeal the Jewish firstborn, the first born Jew, must endure to affect the divine covenant (John 20:25).



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
As typologically designed or intended, both membranes are torn simultaneously in the first sinful act of sex that takes place after the chuppah, such that tearing the male's membrane eight days after birth, or under the chuppah (as etymology and history suggests is the typical case) implies that the membrane of virginity is torn on the male body prior to the first sinful act of sex such that in a parallel sense the ritual beg the tsaddik to imagine the same membrane on the female also being torn prior to the first act of phallic sex, and by the same nails in a Jewish male's hand (in this case from the inside out), wherein, and whereby, the crux of the symbolism is nakedly revealed to the serious exegete.

As a footnote, the orthodox Jewish circumciser, the mohel, sharpens the nails in his hand and uses nails in the hand as part and parcel of the symbolism of the ordeal the Jewish firstborn, the first born Jew, must endure to affect the divine covenant (John 20:25).

The opening of the membrane in the middle of the garden is supposed to speak of a non-dualistic pregnancy; a pregnancy that's non-binary: a virgin pregnancy, such that the nails in the hand of the one being born open the intact membrane before the biological serpent does:

942. this is woman See Pirqei de-Rabbi Eli’ezer 21: “But from the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden. It has been taught: Rabbi Ze’eira said, ‘But from the fruit of the tree ---this tree means man, who is compared to a tree, as is said: Man is a tree of the field (Deuteronomy 20:19). In the middle of the garden—the middle of the garden is a euphemism for what lies in the middle of the body. In the middle of the garden ---in the middle of the woman, for garden means woman, who is compared to a garden, as is said: A locked garden is my sister, bride (Song of Songs 4:12).’”​
The Zohar 1, note 942, Be-Re**** 1:35b.​

Professor Matt's note (#942) helps make sense of what's going on beneath the garment and the flesh of Genesis chapter 2. Carefully deciphered, Matt points out that the tree in the middle of the garden is man, while the garden is woman. In the context of this examination, this revelation is a serious gem since it implies that the "tree of knowledge" is not only distinct from the "tree of life," but that the two trees share, as the sages are wont to point out, the same root, which is in the garden (the original human a.k.a. ha-adam האדם, that is ---a generic human and not a man per se).

The discussion of the two distinct trees occur before the most seminal passage in the garden of the chapter, Genesis 2:21, implying that the text is discussing two trees related to the original, generic, human האדם (since the second human, Eve, comes later in the narrative).

Two trees will be found in the middle of the garden, i.e., the human body, such that the original genitalia (in the womb every fetus begins with a vagina which only subsequently transforms into the phallus if the fetus is flooded with testosterone, see essay, The Primordial Phallus), which is to say the original tree, the "tree of life," is the organ in the middle of the woman, while the "tree of knowledge" is the outer foliage of the "tree of life," which, being stretched over the outside of the "tree of life" (ala Genesis 2:21, which parallels fetal development) makes it ---i.e., the male organ ---the orlah, or barrier, that confuses the nature of the two trees since only the "tree of knowledge" is apparent to the visual senses (see essay, Foreskin: A Forgery for the Ages).



John
 
Last edited:

Yokefellow

Active Member
I never noticed that verse before...

this tree means man, who is compared to a tree, as is said: Man is a tree of the field (Deuteronomy 20:19).

The KJV looks like this...

Deuteronomy 20:19
"When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege"


Very interesting indeed.

This comment from your research...

1704837918773.png

...has inspired me to do some more research myself.

From my Christian perspective, the 'Living Waters' that fertilize the Tree of Life in New Jerusalem are representative of Semen...

Revelation 22:1
"And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb."


Said Semen proceeds from the Masculine Throne (Phallus). The Lamb represents the Seed of Abraham (Father) fertilizing the Ovary that are produced on a Monthly Period.

Your comment brought me to this verse...

Genesis 2:10
"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads."


If that river represents the original Semen from God before it was corrupted by the Serpent, then the 'Four Heads' could be linked to...
  • Adenine
  • Guanine
  • Cytosine
  • Thymine
I looked up 'Headwaters' and got this...


Some translations use the word 'Branch'...

Genesis 2:10 (New Living Translation)
A river flowed from the land of Eden, watering the garden and then dividing into four branches.


Nucleotide Branches!

Branch Nucleotides.png


I cannot believe that the word 'Rosh' is linked to the head of the Serpent...

Genesis 3:15
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."


What a match! And then there is this...

Genesis 8:5
"And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen."


Mountains represent the Phallus. The 'tops' of the Mountains is where the Seed (A, C, G, T) proceeds from.

The 'Head' of the Phallus Dragon 'casts a flood of Semen' at the Woman...

Revelation 12:15
"And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood."


So obvious.

Just wow. I wish more people did the kind of research you are doing @John D. Brey . We may see things a bit different, but we see that it reflects Biology. The world needs to wake up to what is really being taught...

1704839850689.png

Amen. Milk vs. Meat.
 

Attachments

  • Candlestick Components.png
    Candlestick Components.png
    347.7 KB · Views: 32

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Two trees will be found in the middle of the garden, i.e., the human body, such that the original genitalia (in the womb every fetus begins with a vagina which only subsequently transforms into the phallus if the fetus is flooded with testosterone, see essay, The Primordial Phallus), which is to say the original tree, the "tree of life," is the organ in the middle of the woman, while the "tree of knowledge" is the outer foliage of the "tree of life," which, being stretched over the outside of the "tree of life" (ala Genesis 2:21, which parallels fetal development) makes it ---i.e., the male organ ---the orlah, or barrier, that confuses the nature of the two trees since only the "tree of knowledge" is apparent to the visual senses (see essay, Foreskin: A Forgery for the Ages).

Rabbi Yehudah asked Rabbi Shim’on, “We have learned: ‘Adam stretched his foreskin.’ 938 What does this mean?” He replied, “That he separated the holy covenant from its site. 939 He certainly stretched the foreskin, for he abandoned the holy covenant, cleaved to the foreskin, was seduced by the word of the serpent.” 940 But from the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden (ibid. 3:3) 941  —this is woman. 942 Do not eat from it (ibid.), for it is written: Her feet descend to death. . . (Proverbs 5:5). 943 On this one there is fruit, on the other there is not. 944 For on the day you eat from it, you will surely die (ibid. 2:17), for it is a tree of death, as we have said: Her feet descend to death.
Pritzker Edition, The Zohar 1, Be-Re**** 1:35b.​

Rashi has a peculiar statement related to the fact that prior to the original sin the there was no difference between the tree and the fruit associated with the tree. The tree could be eaten, and tasted identical to the fruit. Only after the sin, and sexual mixing, did the taste of the fruit diverge from the tree itself:
עץ פרי FRUIT TREE — that the taste of the tree be exactly the same as that of the fruit. It did not, however, do this, but (v. 12) “the earth brought forth a tree yielding fruit” and the tree itself was not a fruit; therefore when Adam was cursed on account of his sin, it (the earth) was also visited (because of its sin) and was cursed also (Genesis Rabbah 5:9).​

Rashi's statement lends itself to decipheing the quotation from the Zohar when we read The Sapirstein Edition Rashi notes at Genesis 3:17. At Genesis 3:17, Rashi says:

ארורה האדמה בעבורך CURSED BE THE GROUND FOR THY SAKE — It will produce to you cursed objects such as flies, fleas and ants; it may be compared to the case of one who gets into depraved ways, and people curse the breasts at which he was suckled (Genesis Rabbah 5:9).​

The Sapirstein Edition Rashi notes add:

1. Bereishis Rabbah 5:9; 20:8; Tanchuma, Ki Seitzei 4. "Accursed is the ground because of you" is a curse to man, for it is addressed to man rather than to the ground. But man's curse is different from those of the serpent and the woman. Their curses directly affected their bodies, while the man's is indirect by means of the earth. That is because the earth, which generated man, deserved to be cursed, as do the parents of a sinner (Nachalas Yaakov). Rashi to 1:11 above said that the earth was later punished along with man for not producing trees whose wood had the same taste as its fruit as God had commanded it.​

The Zohar understand the "earth" as the ground of the garden ---"for garden means woman, who is compared to a garden, as is said: A locked garden is my sister, bride (Song of Songs 4:12)." The "garden," that is the body of the woman, is cursed because the human, ha-adam, even before the making of Eve, "stretched the foreskin." The human doesn't stretch "his" foreskin since prior to the so-called "stretching" there's no he. The so-called "stretching" is the event noted by the Hebrew word sagar סגר found in Genesis 2:21 which is also where we learn that a cigar or sagar isn't always just a cigar or sagar.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
The Zohar understand the "earth" as the ground of the garden ---"for garden means woman, who is compared to a garden, as is said: A locked garden is my sister, bride (Song of Songs 4:12)." The "garden," that is the body of the woman, is cursed because the human, ha-adam, even before the making of Eve, "stretched the foreskin." The human doesn't stretch "his" foreskin since prior to the so-called "stretching" there's no he. The so-called "stretching" is the event noted by the Hebrew word sagar סגר found in Genesis 2:21 which is also where we learn that a cigar or sagar isn't always just a cigar or sagar.

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the human, and the human slept: and he took one of the ribs, and closed up סגר her flesh there.​
Genesis 2:21.​

Genesis 2:21 states precisely what happens in the womb when the "primordial phallus" (the fetal genitalia prior to full development into the male-flesh) transforms from vagina to penis under the auspices of the Y-chromosome. In the Hebrew text, the woman is a clone plain and simple: same bone, same chromosomes, same flesh, as the human. It's the stretching and suturing, the closing up סגר of the labial flesh of the human, that creates the binary relationship between the clone and the prototype. The "stretched" skin and flesh is none other than the creation of the organ Dante makes the central tree, or pillar, of hell.

938. ‘Adam stretched his foreskin’ See BT Sanhedrin 38b: “Rabbi Yitsḥak said, ‘He [Adam] stretched his foreskin.’” The phrase refers to epispasm, an attempt to disguise circumcision by cutting and pulling forward the loose skin of the penis to form a partial foreskin. According to rabbinic tradition, Adam was one of those rare individuals born circumcised. See Avot de-Rabbi Natan A, 2; Tanḥuma, Noaḥ 5.​
Pritzker Edition, The Zohar 1, Be-Re**** 1:35b.​

The first human isn't born circumcised, but created in a state representing circumcision. The human stretched flesh (or allows it to be stretched) in order to create the new gender. The loose skin of the labial flesh is pulled forward not to cover the penis, but to form the penis, therein making the original sin possible. The disguise is the concealing of the original body ---which represents circumcision ---with the phallic-endowed body that represents uncircumcision (see, Foreskin: A Forgery for the Ages).

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 and Eve 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.​



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the human, and the human slept: and he took one of the ribs, and closed up סגר her flesh there.​
Genesis 2:21.​

Genesis 2:21 states precisely what happens in the womb when the "primordial phallus" (the fetal genitalia prior to full development into the male-flesh) transforms from vagina to penis under the auspices of the Y-chromosome. In the Hebrew text, the woman is a clone plain and simple: same bone, same chromosomes, same flesh, as the human. It's the stretching and suturing, the closing up סגר of the labial flesh of the human, that creates the binary relationship between the clone and the prototype. The "stretched" skin and flesh is none other than the creation of the organ Dante makes the central tree, or pillar, of hell.

938. ‘Adam stretched his foreskin’ See BT Sanhedrin 38b: “Rabbi Yitsḥak said, ‘He [Adam] stretched his foreskin.’” The phrase refers to epispasm, an attempt to disguise circumcision by cutting and pulling forward the loose skin of the penis to form a partial foreskin. According to rabbinic tradition, Adam was one of those rare individuals born circumcised. See Avot de-Rabbi Natan A, 2; Tanḥuma, Noaḥ 5.​
Pritzker Edition, The Zohar 1, Be-Re**** 1:35b.​

The first human isn't born circumcised, but created in a state representing circumcision. The human stretched flesh (or allows it to be stretched) in order to create the new gender. The loose skin of the labial flesh is pulled forward not to cover the penis, but to form the penis, therein making the original sin possible. The disguise is the concealing of the original body ---which represents circumcision ---with the phallic-endowed body that represents uncircumcision (see, Foreskin: A Forgery for the Ages).

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 and Eve 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.​

The fore-going (so to say) returns everything to this statement from the Zohar:

Rabbi Yehudah asked Rabbi Shim’on, “We have learned: ‘Adam stretched his foreskin.’ 938 What does this mean?” He replied, “That he separated the holy covenant from its site. 939 He certainly stretched the foreskin, for he abandoned the holy covenant, cleaved to the foreskin, was seduced by the word of the serpent.” 940 But from the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden (ibid. 3:3) 941  —this is woman. 942 Do not eat from it (ibid.), for it is written: Her feet descend to death. . . (Proverbs 5:5). 943 On this one there is fruit, on the other there is not. 944 For on the day you eat from it, you will surely die (ibid. 2:17), for it is a tree of death, as we have said: Her feet descend to death.

Pritzker Edition, The Zohar 1, Be-Re**** 1:35b.​

Rabbi Shim'on replies that the human certainly stretched the foreskin (or endure its stretching) thereby "abandoning the holy covenant." The holy covenant that's abandoned is the fact that the first human is created already pregnant with the holy covenant therein making the first human The Original Jewish Mother (see essay). By stretching the foreskin the human creates the status "uncircumcision" simultaneous to affecting the meaning of what it is to be "circumcised" or the circumcision. Circumcised humanity is, or becomes, pregnant apart from the foreskin (John 1:12-13), which foreskin is a synonym for "male-flesh." In truth, stretching the foreskin is merely a metaphor for the creation of the male body by the ornamenting of the original body with a male-organ such as is described in Genesis 2:21 when the labial flesh is stretched and sutured shut as it is naturally in the womb of the mother of a male child.

HE HATH BROKEN MY COVENANT. This refers to one whose circumcision is disguised." [The note to the Soncino Edition Midrash Rabbah says "disguised" means epispasm].​
Midrash Rabbah, Bere****h, XLVI, 13.​

The original, or generic, human body, is disguised in such a manner that what was originally non-binary is covered up by being made into dual-gendered models such that the holy covenant, i.e., the firstborn of ha-adam (ha-adam being the original Jewish mother and the very prototype of circumcision), gets lost in the duplicitous narrative that distorts the nefarious nature of the creation of binary gendered humanity. The truth of the narrative is lost in the Masoretic rendition of the narrative and this loss is passed on to all the Bibles that are come from the Masoretic massaging of the Hebrew scroll that leads to the erection of highly questionable offspring.



John
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
All that erudition, and the only thing I can think of is that if a woman wants to claim her son is a god (or if a son wants to claim that his father is a god and therefore so is he), the most important thing is to try to make some sort of case for the mother's virginity (i.e. untouched by a human male). Who else, then, could be credited with that son's paternity -- and thus claim to divinity?
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
All that erudition, and the only thing I can think of is that if a woman wants to claim her son is a god (or if a son wants to claim that his father is a god and therefore so is he), the most important thing is to try to make some sort of case for the mother's virginity (i.e. untouched by a human male). Who else, then, could be credited with that son's paternity -- and thus claim to divinity?

It says a lot that you were even able to wade through it. And I get the gist of your comment. The case I'm making is different from the more obvious point you make. I doubt anyone will appreciate the puzzle I've solved (or am solving) for a long long time. There's so much crammed into all these threads and the essays derived from them that almost no one possesses the knowledge and expertise to know if they're just the ranting of a vivid imagination or else serious scholarship of a level heretofore unknown.

Because of artificial intelligence we can now put the Bible's puzzle together in a way that makes perfect sense and doesn't distort science. When this artificial intelligence gets intelligent enough, it will likely make ideas such as the ones found in this thread accessible to even those who don't possess the knowledge and information that would otherwise be required to see that this stuff is on the cutting edge of a new reading of the Bible, new exegesis of the Bible, that puts the lie to so much falsehood peddled in God's name for such an incredibly long time.


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Rabbi Yehudah asked Rabbi Shim’on, “We have learned: ‘Adam stretched his foreskin.’ 938 What does this mean?” He replied, “That he separated the holy covenant from its site. 939 He certainly stretched the foreskin, for he abandoned the holy covenant, cleaved to the foreskin, was seduced by the word of the serpent.” 940 But from the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden (ibid. 3:3) 941  —this is woman. 942 Do not eat from it (ibid.), for it is written: Her feet descend to death. . . (Proverbs 5:5). 943 On this one there is fruit, on the other there is not. 944 For on the day you eat from it, you will surely die (ibid. 2:17), for it is a tree of death, as we have said: Her feet descend to death.
Pritzker Edition, The Zohar 1, Be-Re**** 1:35b.​

There are two trees in the middle of ha-adam's body. One is the natural organ of the body designed by God, and the other is the Tree of Knowledge that's wrapped and sutured around the original organ thereby hiding it as though the Tree of Knowledge is as original as the Tree of Life. But, as noted above in the Zohar, one of the trees sports fruit dangling from the tree, while the other doesn't. The testicles are fancied fruit dangling from the Tree of Knowledge. And on the day you eat from that fruit you will surely die:

One of the most pervasive metaphors for sex in talmudic literature associates it with food. . . For example, wives in the talmudic texts to be discussed below describe their and their husband's sexual practice as "setting the table" and "turning it over," and the Talmud itself produces a comparison between sexuality and food--- either of which one may "cook" however one pleases, provided only that it is kosher to begin with. . . Thus the Mishna at Ketubbot 5:9 reads that a wife has the right to eat with her husband every Friday night, and in both Talmuds, this is understood to mean to have sexual intercourse with him.​
Rabbi Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel, p. 72 (see also pages, 116-117).​

Until the fruit dangling from the Tree of Knowledge is consumed there's no death in the human race.

Paul never could have said that all are "by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3), if they had not been cursed from the womb. And it is obvious that the nature there referred to is not nature such as God created, but as vitiated in Adam; for it would have been most incongruous to make God the author of death. Adam, therefore, when he corrupted himself, transmitted the contagion to all his posterity.​
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 2, chapter 1.​

Where ha-adam stretching his foreskin is understood to be both how ha-adam was corrupted, and also the creation of the Tree of Knowledge, that is, the phallus, with its dangling fruit (see essay, The Theology of Semen), Calvin's understanding of the nature of ha-adam's adulteration takes on its true significance:

Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. The Pelagian cavil, as to the improbability of children deriving corruption from pious parents, whereas, they ought rather to be sanctified by their purity, is easily refuted. Children come not by spiritual regeneration but carnal descent. Accordingly, as Augustine says, "Both the condemned unbeliever and the acquitted believer beget offspring not acquitted but condemned, because the nature which begets is corrupt". . . Guilt is from nature, whereas sanctification is from supernatural grace.​



John
 
Last edited:
Top