Who Or What Is Israel?

[YoursTrue]

Nonsense. The removal of the foreskin does not mean the "actual," absolute, utter, elimination" of the penis. You get the prize this morning for the silliest remark.

Read correctly, he did not say the utter etc elimination of the organ. You misunderstood. Even if I don't agree with John, it's clear you misunderstood what he said.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know as it was done to me when I was around 50.


No, it simply does not "eliminate the organ". Nor does it involve "removing a slice" if one was circumcised previously-- it's a prick.

Hint: he said it was a sign.

 

[YoursTrue]

One definition--foreskin to separate it from the penis. The foreskin is then removed using scissors or a scalpel. Alternatively, circumcision can be performed as a formal surgical procedure, using dissolving sutures or tissue glue.https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/circumcision

 

[YoursTrue]

I know as it was done to me when I was around 50.


No, it simply does not "eliminate the organ". Nor does it involve "removing a slice" if one was circumcised previously-- it's a prick.

Oh you mean if one was circumcised not because of Jewish ritual but because many hospitals did it as a matter of course to newborns?

 

[John D. Brey]

So...which of the 613 laws says in order for a child to be considered a Jew he must have been born from a Jewish woman. @metis please also.

Since the laws are a perfect interlocking system there's a sense in which one way or another they all speak to the fact that to be a Jew is to have a Jewish mother. If we acknowledge the absolute nature of the Law, then there must be what's called a "transcendental signifier" that's able to lend itself to uniting all the laws in their systematic unity as the Law (John 5:39). Nevertheless, as plainly written, the laws hide the nature of their interrelationship until the transcendental signifier signifies the nature of the previously unknown unity.

In Judaism decrees like ritual circumcision are known as "chukkim" (irrational, supra-rational, decrees, where the true reasoning behind them is hidden and unknown). Judaism teaches that the meaning of (the rationale behind) the decrees (why do we cut skin from that organ?) will be made understood in the days of Messiah.

Voila! Messiah is born of a virgin. He had no fathering-organ take part in his conception such that he's the first actual Jew versus lots of ritual Jews whose fathers only ritually, symbolically, eliminated, bled, that organ out of the conception of their firstborn. Until the virgin birth of Messiah, the commandment to cut flesh from the fathering-organ was one of the chukkim given to Israel such that its rationale would be unknown until the days of Messiah. Voila! Messiah's very birth revealed the meaning behind ritually bleeding that flesh.

The very first ritual associated with the beginning of Jewish identity is ritual circumcision (symbolic emasculation). The very first commandment from the Tanakh that's revealed at Messiah's arrival, i.e., his virgin birth, consequently gives the meaning of the very first "ritual" establishing the people who will birth him (no male of that or any other people will father the first actual Jew since he's born of a pregnancy whose conception, beyond merely scathing that particular organ, ritually, as an initially irrational (unknown) "sign," instead cuts through to the very bone of the truth hidden in the ritual: the virgin birth of Messiah. His father's fathering-organ is completely eliminated from his conception and pregnancy.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

As far as your last sentence, true. Which does bring to mind the incident with Isaac and Esau. Poor Esau mourned his loss and Rebecca knew which brother truly deserved the birthright even though she personally couldn't transfer it. Very very interesting account at Genesis 27. I'm going over it.

Since the scripture is absolute, when you find seeming contradictions they aren't. They're just used to hide truths for various reasons, from various people. Which is to say that Jacob isn't the second born. He's the true firstborn of the twins. Esau, like Perez, is a usurper who "breaches" the womb out of order.

In the story of the two twins, Perez and Zarah, Perez's heel "breaches" (opens the womb) with Zarah's hand holding on to it. The midwife ties a scarlet string around Zarah's hand signifying him as the firstborn since having taken hold of Perez's heel, it, the hand of Zarah, "possesses" the heel, such that it actually comes out prior to the heel of Perez. Zarah's hand retreats into the womb as Perez is born first, but since Zarah's hand opened the womb, he's the true firstborn though Perez comes out first. The scarlet string is placed on the hand that opens the womb since if hand and heel both retreat into the womb, it's impossible to know who is the true firstborn, who "opened the womb"?

In the story of Esau and Jacob, the Author of the narrative notes that Jacob's hand "possessed" אחזת Esau's heel such that just like Zarah, Jacob is the true opener of the womb, the true firstborn. Nevertheless, for the sake of hiding these things from certain readers, for certain reasons, a scarlet thread wasn't attached to Jacob's hand so that only those who know the story of Perez and Zarah are likely to appreciate why the text states that Jacob's hand possessed the heel of Esau.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I know as it was done to me when I was around 50.

Ouch!

No, it simply does not "eliminate the organ". Nor does it involve "removing a slice" if one was circumcised previously-- it's a prick.

The prick, so to say , is to draw blood. Throughout the Tanakh, the drawing of blood always signifies death to the organ from which the blood is drawn. Since circumcision is a ritual, it's a sign, symbol, and not the reality it merely signifies, we can know that it signifies the death, the sacrifice, of the organ from whence the blood is drawn.

To a Jew, though that's all fact, it means little. But the Jew who knows that ritual circumcision is one of the chukkim, the decrees whose rationale, or rational meaning, is said to be unknown until the times of Messiah, to that Jew, the fact that a Jewish firstborn, whom billions of persons reckon Messiah, was born without the organ ritually bled to death, sacrificed, means that that virgin birth is the transcendental signifier that signifies what the mere "ritual" or symbolic act of drawing blood, sacrificing, that organ, was pointing to for all those centuries when it was an irrational and unknown ritual awaiting the times, in this case birth, virgin, of Messiah.



John

 

[YoursTrue]

Since the scripture is absolute, when you find seeming contradictions they aren't. They're just used to hide truths for various reasons, from various people.

I don't know about that.

Which is to say that Jacob isn't the second born. He's the true firstborn of the twins. Esau, like Perez, is a usurper who "breaches" the womb out of order.

OK, now how do you figure that? The Bible says at Genesis 25: "When the time came for her to give birth, look! twins were in her womb. 25 Then the first came out red all over and was like a garment of hair, so they named him Esau. 26 After that his brother came out and his hand was holding onto the heel of Eʹsau, so he named him Jacob."In the story of the two twins, Perez and Zarah, Perez's heel "breaches" (opens the womb) with Zarah's hand holding on to it. The midwife ties a scarlet string around Zarah's hand signifying him as the firstborn since having taken hold of Perez's heel, it, the hand of Zarah, "possesses" the heel, such that it actually comes out prior to the heel of Perez. Zarah's hand retreats into the womb as Perez is born first, but since Zarah's hand opened the womb, he's the true firstborn though Perez comes out first. The scarlet string is placed on the hand that opens the womb since if hand and heel both retreat into the womb, it's impossible to know who is the true firstborn, who "opened the womb"?

In the story of Esau and Jacob, the Author of the narrative notes that Jacob's hand "possessed" אחזת Esau's heel such that just like Zarah, Jacob is the true opener of the womb, the true firstborn. Nevertheless, for the sake of hiding these things from certain readers, for certain reasons, a scarlet thread wasn't attached to Jacob's hand so that only those who know the story of Perez and Zarah are likely to appreciate why the text states that Jacob's hand possessed the heel of Esau.
John

Frankly, I don't even know what you're saying here. The Bible says in Genesis 25 that the one "red all over" came out first. That was Esau. Meantime a lot of the account goes into Esau's right, and Rebekah and Jacob.

 

[John D. Brey]

Nonsense. The removal of the foreskin does not mean the "actual," absolute, utter, elimination" of the penis. You get the prize this morning for the silliest remark.

On the contrary. I'd say the silliest remark possible is that removing a piece of flesh from the penis makes someone a Jew, or sanctifies their body, or does anything other than symbolize something that could (i.e., what is symbolized) possible be important. And yet mistranslated, misinterpreted, and misunderstood, that's what the belief that removing flesh from the penis is left to signify if it's taken for the thing itself, rather than as an important symbol for something it is not.



John

 

[IndigoChild5559]

On the contrary. I'd say the silliest remark possible is that removing a piece of flesh from the penis makes someone a Jew, or sanctifies their body, or does anything other than symbolize something that could (i.e., what is symbolized) possible be important. And yet mistranslated, misinterpreted, and misunderstood, that's what the belief that removing flesh from the penis is left to signify if it's taken for the thing itself, rather than as an important symbol for something it is not.



John

If you don't like circumcision, that's your business. However, that was not the topic. The topic was your claim that circumcision destroys an organ. No, it doesn't destroy the penis, and you need to back down.

 

[John D. Brey]

OK, now how do you figure that? The Bible says at Genesis 25: "When the time came for her to give birth, look! twins were in her womb. 25 Then the first came out red all over and was like a garment of hair, so they named him Esau. 26 After that his brother came out and his hand was holding onto the heel of Eʹsau, so he named him Jacob."

The English is often pretty far from what's being said in the Hebrew. As written, the English seems to imply that Jacob holding Esau's heel is why he was named Jacob? But there's doesn't seem to be a relationship in the text between "possessing" Esau's heel, and the name Jacob? The scripture is never redundant. It doesn't tell us Jacob's hand possessed Esau's heel just to tell us an meaningless nuance. Jacob's hand possessing Esau's heel is an important part of the narrative.

As noted earlier in this thread, in Hebrew, "opening the womb" signifies the "firstborn." He's called the "womb opener" פטר רחם (peter rechem). And since determining the "firstborn" is of the utmost importance in Judaism, when twins are in the womb, it's important to be able to determine which is the firstborn. That's why the scripture states that the scarlet thread is attached to Zarah's wrist such that when it retreats back into the womb, and Perez actually comes out first, he, Perez not be reckoned the true firstborn.

The story of Esau and Jacob is extremely interesting since in that narrative, Issac acts as though he doesn't know that Jacob is the true firstborn when he probably does. When he gives Jacob the inheritance, the text implies, for many reasons, that it's because he's blind and confused. But the careful reader knows better. Isaac knows Jacob is the firstborn and gives him the inheritance in the end even though a ruse has taken place on the surface of the text. Jacob's hand possesses Esau's heel when heel in hand the womb is opened such that just as Zarah's hand opened the womb while Perez came out first, so too, Jacob's hand (with Esau's heel in it) opened the womb though Esau came out first.



John

 

[YoursTrue]

On the contrary. I'd say the silliest remark possible is that removing a piece of flesh from the penis makes someone a Jew, or sanctifies their body, or does anything other than symbolize something that could (i.e., what is symbolized) possible be important. And yet mistranslated, misinterpreted, and misunderstood, that's what the belief that removing flesh from the penis is left to signify if it's taken for the thing itself, rather than as an important symbol for something it is not.
John

As a point of interest, "Parents who circumcise their children often do so for religious or cultural reasons. The religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism require or recommend circumcision. Circumcision is also common in some parts of Africa, Australia, and the Middle East. Other reasons for circumcision include: Hygiene, Preventing diseases such as urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted infections, and cancer, Family reasons, like the father being circumcised, Personal reasons"

Circumcision Basics

Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin, the tissue covering the head (glans) of the penis. Learn about the benefits and risks in this overview.

www.webmd.com

So in many cases, the children are not Jewish, and the circumcision would be religiously done for Jewish boys by an authorized person in the Jewish sect.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you don't like circumcision, that's your business. However, that was not the topic. The topic was your claim that circumcision destroys an organ. No, it doesn't destroy the penis, and you need to back down.

I did not read that in @John D. Brey's summation. Insofar as I read, circumcision was a "sign." Not a literal destruction of the organ. So long for now. I think you misinterpreted, IC5559.

 

[John D. Brey]

If you don't like circumcision, that's your business. However, that was not the topic. The topic was your claim that circumcision destroys an organ. No, it doesn't destroy the penis, and you need to back down.

I think everything I've said has made it pretty clear that I'm saying that circumcision symbolizes the destruction of that organ's role in sexual reproduction, i.e., that it symbolizes the elimination of that organ in the birth of an actual Jew, rather than a Jew whose father's organ was only ritually, symbolically, eliminated from his conception and birth by ritually marking it for an eschatological elimination in the days of Messiah.

As noted recently in this thread, ritual circumcision is well-known to be one of the decrees who's meaning, whose rationale (what does it mean to bleed that organ) is said to be irrational until the days of Messiah arrive when the rationale will be revealed.

The days of Messiah have arrived for those who believe Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin pregnancy. Therefore, for those who believe Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin pregnancy (a pregnancy that eliminates the male organ), and that he's Messiah, the days of Messiah have arrived, and the formerly irrational meaning of bleeding that particular organ has been revealed (in the nature of Messiah's conception and birth) just as the Jewish sages say it will be revealed in the days of Messiah.

So you see, far from disliking circumcision, I see myself as someone born in the days of Messiah when the true meaning of circumcision has been reveal in the nature of his conception and birth. To say I dislike circumcision is completely opposite of the truth of the matter.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

As a point of interest, "Parents who circumcise their children often do so for religious or cultural reasons. The religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism require or recommend circumcision. Circumcision is also common in some parts of Africa, Australia, and the Middle East. Other reasons for circumcision include: Hygiene, Preventing diseases such as urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted infections, and cancer, Family reasons, like the father being circumcised, Personal reasons"

Circumcision Basics

Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin, the tissue covering the head (glans) of the penis. Learn about the benefits and risks in this overview.

www.webmd.com

So in many cases, the children are not Jewish, and the circumcision would be religiously done for Jewish boys by an authorized person in the Jewish sect.

Medical circumcision has nothing to do with Jewish circumcision. And Jewish circumcision has nothing to do with medical rationales and reasoning. Rich royals have been known to have Jewish mohel's circumcise their boys. But that's just because they trust them as experts in that area and not for religious reasons.


John

 

[YoursTrue]

The English is often pretty far from what's being said in the Hebrew. As written, the English seems to imply that Jacob holding Esau's heel is why he was named Jacob? But there's doesn't seem to be a relationship in the text between "possessing" Esau's heel, and the name Jacob? The scripture is never redundant. It doesn't tell us Jacob's hand possessed Esau's heel just to tell us an meaningless nuance. Jacob's hand possessing Esau's heel is an important part of the narrative.

As noted earlier in this thread, in Hebrew, "opening the womb" signifies the "firstborn." He's called the "womb opener" פטר רחם (peter rechem). And since determining the "firstborn" is of the utmost importance in Judaism, when twins are in the womb, it's important to be able to determine which is the firstborn. That's why the scripture states that the scarlet thread is attached to Zarah's wrist such that when it retreats back into the womb, and Perez actually comes out first, he, Perez not be reckoned the true firstborn.

The story of Esau and Jacob is extremely interesting since in that narrative, Issac acts as though he doesn't know that Jacob is the true firstborn when he probably does. When he gives Jacob the inheritance, the text implies, for many reasons, that it's because he's blind and confused. But the careful reader knows better. Isaac knows Jacob is the firstborn and gives him the inheritance in the end even though a ruse has taken place on the surface of the text. Jacob's hand possesses Esau's heel when heel in hand the womb is opened such that just as Zarah's hand opened the womb while Perez came out first, so too, Jacob's hand (with Esau's heel in it) opened the womb though Esau came out first.
John

I appreciate your perspicacity in reference to the exact meanings of terms, and I can't say I'm up to par with you, so I did a little research on this regarding the name Jacob.
"Jacob is a classic and popular boy name. It comes from the Old Testament and means “supplanter,” which is often interpreted as someone who seizes, circumvents, or usurps.
In the book of Genesis, the twins Jacob and Esau were born to Isaac and Rebecca; Esau came first, making him the first-born son. When Jacob was born he was holding onto Esau’s heel. This foreshadows two future Biblical events where Jacob usurps or seizes Esau’s birthright as the first-born son." There's more, but I'll leave it at that now.

What Does the Name Jacob Mean?

Jacob is frequently used as a boy name. Learn more about the meaning, origin, and popularity of the name Jacob.

www.verywellfamily.com

 

[YoursTrue]

Medical circumcision has nothing to do with Jewish circumcision. And Jewish circumcision has nothing to do with medical rationales and reasoning. Rich royals have been known to have Jewish mohel's circumcise their boys. But that's just because they trust them as experts in that area and not for religious reasons.
John

No argument from me there...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think everything I've said has made it pretty clear that I'm saying that circumcision symbolizes the destruction of that organ's role in sexual reproduction, i.e., that it symbolizes the elimination of that organ in the birth of an actual Jew, rather than a Jew whose father's organ was only ritually, symbolically, eliminated from his conception and birth by ritually marking it for an eschatological elimination in the days of Messiah.

As noted recently in this thread, ritual circumcision is well-known to be one of the decrees who's meaning, whose rationale (what does it mean to bleed that organ) is said to be irrational until the days of Messiah arrive when the rationale will be revealed.

The days of Messiah have arrived for those who believe Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin pregnancy. Therefore, for those who believe Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin pregnancy (a pregnancy that eliminates the male organ), and that he's Messiah, the days of Messiah have arrived, and the formerly irrational meaning of bleeding that particular organ has been revealed (in the nature of Messiah's conception and birth) just as the Jewish sages say it will be revealed in the days of Messiah.

So you see, far from disliking circumcision, I see myself as someone born in the days of Messiah when the true meaning of circumcision has been reveal in the nature of his conception and birth. To say I dislike circumcision is completely opposite of the truth of the matter.



John

Here are your EXACT words from post 420:
"Brit milah ritualizes a reality. Removing a slice, and some blood, is a "sign" אות of the "actual," absolute, utter, elimination of that organ in a singular conception/birth that's the transcendental signifier concerning all genuine religious thought."

So no, it was NOT clear that you were saying "that circumcision symbolizes the destruction of that organ's role in sexual reproduction." Not only that, but this second claim of yours really makes no sense at all. If circumcision stopped the penis from reproducing, Jews would have vanished from the earth long, long ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think everything I've said has made it pretty clear that I'm saying that circumcision symbolizes the destruction of that organ's role in sexual reproduction, i.e., that it symbolizes the elimination of that organ in the birth of an actual Jew, rather than a Jew whose father's organ was only ritually, symbolically, eliminated from his conception and birth by ritually marking it for an eschatological elimination in the days of Messiah.

John

Not sure where you got that interpretation from, though, John. But it makes for interesting research.

 

[YoursTrue]

Here are your EXACT words from post 420:
"Brit milah ritualizes a reality. Removing a slice, and some blood, is a "sign" אות of the "actual," absolute, utter, elimination of that organ in a singular conception/birth that's the transcendental signifier concerning all genuine religious thought."

So no, it was NOT clear that you were saying "that circumcision symbolizes the destruction of that organ's role in sexual reproduction." Not only that, but this second claim of yours really makes no sense at all. If circumcision stopped the penis from reproducing, Jews would have vanished from the earth long, long ago.

Again -- he said a "SIGN" of the actual, utter, etc. A sign is not the actuality. However, maybe I'll do a little research on that. Or perhaps John D. can let those interested where he found this.