The hymen doesn't work that way, bible.

[John D. Brey]

The bible is no exception to this ancient practice. In Deuteronomy 22:13-21 it says:"If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,' then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. And the young woman's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. 'Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, "I found your daughter was not a virgin," and yet these are the evidences of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put away the evil from among you"

As I hope you all understand by now, this is totally bull****.This woman's life relies on a completely inaccurate test. How many women do you suppose were stoned after their virginity was called into doubt because some completely unrelated activity tore the hymen? Or because the hymen was simply not broken during sex?
Or how many women were saved, not because they didn't commit adultery, but because their hymens healed and tore again?

Christians are quick to point out that this scripture is part of the old covenant and not enforceable by Christians today. Fewer doubt, however, that the old covenant was indeed handed down by God to the ancient Israelites. But my question to you is...why in the world would God give this instruction in the first place? I'm assuming he would have known this bit of female anatomy trivia already. So why make a completely bonkers test that could easily end with an innocent woman getting killed? The only thing that makes sense to me is this wasn't written by a divinely inspired author, but was a hold out of the cultural misconceptions that have endured in some places even to this day.

Circumcision was originally a part of the marriage ceremony. The father-in-law (xothen, same word used for "circumciser") ritually emasculated his son-in-law, the bridegroom (xathan, same word used for "circumcised") to ensure that his daughter, the bride, would remain a perpetual virgin. The firstborn would of needs be born of a virgin such that he would "open the womb" (Exodus 13:2) that would have typically beeen opened by the Gentile organ of regeneration had his father not been ritually emasculated under the chuppah.

The cloth spoken of in Deut. (which you quote) is the cloth wrapped around the bleeding organ that was cut under the chuppah by the father-in-law. It signifies the perpetual virginity of every Jewish bride. This cloth was given to the father-in-law as a gift such that he could always prove that his daughter was a Jewish bride, and thus a perpetual virgin (ritually at least) since her husband was ritually emasculated (circumcised) under the chuppah. . . Not only did the xothen perform the ritual emasculation of his son-in-law, but he retained the cloth with the blood of the circumcision as a proof that his daughter was a Jewish bride, which is to say a perpetual virgin, since he himself unmanned (ritually) his son-in-law, and retained the proof of this sacred emasculation.

The blood of a niddah is unclean and can't be given as a gift, nor can it be stored or saved as is the case with the cloth spoken of in Deut.. On the other hand, the blood of circumcision is clean. It can not only be given to the father-in-law as a gift, but it is often used to wrap Torah scrolls, or used in other sacred ways.

A person knowledgable concerning these things knows that there are three parts to the ritual circumcision performed under the chuppah. Periah, the second stage, is when the male hymen is torn by the fingernail of the mohel. It is this severing of the hymenal membrane that is the source of virginity in Judaism and not the tearing of the female membrane.




John

 

[rosends]

Circumcision was originally a part of the marriage ceremony. The father-in-law (xothen, same word used for "circumciser") ritually emasculated his son-in-law, the bridegroom (xathan, same word used for "circumcised") to ensure that his daughter, the bride, would remain a perpetual virgin. The firstborn would of needs be born of a virgin such that he would "open the womb" (Exodus 13:2) that would have typically beeen opened by the Gentile organ of regeneration had his father not been ritually emasculated under the chuppah.

In what system do you claim this took place? It certainly wasn't in Judaism or under any Mosaic code. In what language would one find the word "xother" or "xathan"?

 

[dantech]

Circumcision was originally a part of the marriage ceremony. The father-in-law (xothen, same word used for "circumciser") ritually emasculated his son-in-law, the bridegroom (xathan, same word used for "circumcised") to ensure that his daughter, the bride, would remain a perpetual virgin. The firstborn would of needs be born of a virgin such that he would "open the womb" (Exodus 13:2) that would have typically beeen opened by the Gentile organ of regeneration had his father not been ritually emasculated under the chuppah.

The cloth spoken of in Deut. (which you quote) is the cloth wrapped around the bleeding organ that was cut under the chuppah by the father-in-law. It signifies the perpetual virginity of every Jewish bride. This cloth was given to the father-in-law as a gift such that he could always prove that his daughter was a Jewish bride, and thus a perpetual virgin (ritually at least) since her husband was ritually emasculated (circumcised) under the chuppah. . . Not only did the xothen perform the ritual emasculation of his son-in-law, but he retained the cloth with the blood of the circumcision as a proof that his daughter was a Jewish bride, which is to say a perpetual virgin, since he himself unmanned (ritually) his son-in-law, and retained the proof of this sacred emasculation.

The blood of a niddah is unclean and can't be given as a gift, nor can it be stored or saved as is the case with the cloth spoken of in Deut.. On the other hand, the blood of circumcision is clean. It can not only be given to the father-in-law as a gift, but it is often used to wrap Torah scrolls, or used in other sacred ways.

A person knowledgable concerning these things knows that there are three parts to the ritual circumcision performed under the chuppah. Periah, the second stage, is when the male hymen is torn by the fingernail of the mohel. It is this severing of the hymenal membrane that is the source of virginity in Judaism and not the tearing of the female membrane.




John

Wtf are you talking about?

 

[RabbiO]

In what system do you claim this took place? It certainly wasn't in Judaism or under any Mosaic code. In what language would one find the word "xother" or "xathan"?

If you check Mr. Brey's blog, per the links below, you will note that no matter the subject title, it is all about Mr. Brey's obsession with penises -

The Sacramental Protocol of Hermeneutics,
God's Male Member.
Cutting Off God's Male Member.
Uncovering the Covering Angel.
The Gospel According to Abraham.
Testicular Testimony.
Lishmah.
Circumcision Allegory.
The Fallacy of Inductive Logic.
Tzimtzum: Crowning Self-Limitation.
Masoretic Malfeasance.
"Shaddai" the Lamb of God.
Cain's Sanctification.
Shabat.
Virgin Girth.
Tetragrammaton in the Flesh.
Brit Milah Di-Da.
Not Peshat Pesach Knot.
A Token Jew.
Metaphysical Jew.
Passover the Matzoh.
Jesus on Same Sex Marriage.
Bere****y Beginning.
Virginity Restored.
Deutero-Israel in Deutero-Isaiah.
Yom Kippur De Jure.
Zion.
Heh Look At This . . .
Exegeting Isaiah 49:16.
Two Bloods.
The First Actual Jew.
Pagan Monotheism.
Exegeting Sarah . . .

 

[John D. Brey]

If you check Mr. Brey's blog, per the links below, you will note that no matter the subject title, it is all about Mr. Brey's obsession with penises -

Circumcision is less about penises and more about the phallus. Penises are used for urinating and Gen(i)tile procreation. The phallus on the other hand, is the most naked symbol in the word of God (Gen. 3:1). The human body is the garden of God, and the serpent (phallus) is the most naked representation of god in that garden: " . . . I have argued that one could chart the history of mystical speculation in Judaism as a transition from an implicit to an explicit phallocentrism connected especially to the visualization of God" (Elliot R. Wolfson, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the Skirkball Department of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University, Circle in the Square, from the Preface).

Brit milah (ritual circumcision) is the most important ritual and symbol in the bible. It represents the unveiling of God's most naked essence (the veil covering the truth of God is ritually removed). Ritual circumcision represents God taking off the veil that hides the truth of who we all are and where we all came from. To some extent Judaism has turned the unveiling (brit milah) into a new veil by draining the symbolism of its blood rather than realizing the naked meaning of the blood drawn in the ritual.

In Judaism, blood drawn from a body always represents the death of the body where the blood is drawn. Therefore ritual circumcision (which in Judaism privileges the blood as the primary symbol) represents the death of the phallus. . . But since the phallus represents the progenitor of Gentile procreation, the blood of circumcision represents the end of one form of procreation, Gen(i)tile sex, and the rising of a new dawn, a new man, and a new form of procreation, where the tongue of one born apart from phallic-sex (Gentile sex) becomes the organ of Jewish procreation (see A Token Jew). More are the sons born from Jesus' circumspect tongue than Abraham's scathed phallus even though Abraham's phallus got better than a thousand year start on Jesus' tongue. God hath made Jesus' tongue exceedingly fruitful such that as Abraham's spiritual son (born apart from Genitile sex) he's delivering up a multitude of nations by means of the organ of Jewish procreation, the tongue.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

In what system do you claim this took place? It certainly wasn't in Judaism or under any Mosaic code. In what language would one find the word "xother" or "xathan"?

In Hebrew, "bridegroom" is חתן. Ibn Ezra said, "It is customary for women to call a son when he is circumcised, bridegroom." Circumcision predates Israel. Foundationally it's a wedding ritual. Judaism is designed to clarify all the symbols and signs of the ritual. Most Jewish sages recognize ritual circumcision as the most important symbol in all creation. It's the symbol that unveils God in his most naked manifestation such that in the Zohar, and most other forms of Jewish mysticism, circumcision is directly associated with an actual theophany of God. God is unveiled in circumcision. He is made manifest.

If God is made manifest in ritual circumcision, we do well to study every jot and tittle of the practice. In the symbolism, ironically, the father-in-law of the bridegroom is called חתן just like the bridegroom. The same Hebrew consonants are used to speak of the bridegroom and the father in law (Ex. 3:1; Isa. 61:10).

Since ritual circumcision is shown to be "opposition" to the flesh (Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch), and since the primary symbol of ritual circumcision is blood, which outside a body is a symbol of death to the body where the blood is drawn, nothing is quite so obvious as the fact that ritual circumcision (brit milah) is ritual emasculation.

This being the case, the father-in-law ritually emasculates his daughter's groom so that their firstborn son will be sanctified unto God by "opening the womb" (Ex. 13:2), the very sign and symbol of Jewish sanctification (Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch). Rabbi Hirsch points out that in the precise definition of the scripture, "opening the womb" is the formulaic sign of how and why the firstborn of Jewish parents is sanctified as a "Jew." But then Rabbi Hirsch wonders out loud in his Chumash how "opening the womb" can distinguish the firstborn from all other children since presumably all children "open the womb" on exit.

. . . Which segues back to the other symbol of the Jewish firstborn: his parents and their wedding bond/covenant. The father-in-law ritually emasculates his son-in-law under the chuppah so that their firstborn son will have to "open the womb" that remains hermetically (the hymen) sealed by reason of his father's emasculation. The Jewish firstborn is the first human born the way the first human would have been born in the garden if not for the original desecration leading to the original sin. The first Jewish firstborn is as Adam's son would have been had not Cain usurped the first Jewish firstborn after the veil in the temple of the human body had been desecrated by the serpent in the very conception of Cain.

As Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan points out (more than once) circumcision in some manner returns the human race to prelapsarian times, the time before the Fall in the garden. It does this by representing a form of procreation born of "breath" rather than semen: the tongue rather than the phallus. Rabbi Kaplan also notes, with others, specifically Scholem, that a primal flaw occurs in the original desecration and sin, such that things are turned upside down, backwards. Even the symbols of ritual circumcision are distorted to hide what ritual circumcision would reveal.

Ritual circumcision has three primary stages, milah, periah, metzitzah. According to the idea of a primal flaw that inverts the truth of the symbolism, metzitzah (which is normally last of the three stages) should be first. The mohel "breaths" spiritual life into the flesh as the first stage of conception. The second stage is periah, which is tearing the membrane of virginity with nails in the hand rather than by means of phallic-sex. If life is breathed into the flesh (per the original creation of man) then that life can be born out of the flesh with the human body intact. The newborn will "open" the still sanctified temple (the veil is intact) of the human body. . . Lastly is milah. The flesh of the phallus is cut out of Jewish procreation and birth. It's cut out of the process, and removed from the human body. It's existence there is a desecration of God's original design (Gen. 2:21).




John

 

[rosends]

In Hebrew, "bridegroom" is חתן. Ibn Ezra said, "It is customary for women to call a son when he is circumcised, bridegroom." Circumcision predates Israel. Foundationally it's a wedding ritual. Judaism is designed to clarify all the symbols and signs of the ritual. Most Jewish sages recognize ritual circumcision as the most important symbol in all creation. It's the symbol that unveils God in his most naked manifestation such that in the Zohar, and most other forms of Jewish mysticism, circumcision is directly associated with an actual theophany of God. God is unveiled in circumcision. He is made manifest.

If God is made manifest in ritual circumcision, we do well to study every jot and tittle of the practice. In the symbolism, ironically, the father-in-law of the bridegroom is called חתן just like the bridegroom. The same Hebrew consonants are used to speak of the bridegroom and the father in law (Ex. 3:1; Isa. 61:10).

Since ritual circumcision is shown to be "opposition" to the flesh (Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch), and since the primary symbol of ritual circumcision is blood, which outside a body is a symbol of death to the body where the blood is drawn, nothing is quite so obvious as the fact that ritual circumcision (brit milah) is ritual emasculation.

This being the case, the father-in-law ritually emasculates his daughter's groom so that their firstborn son will be sanctified unto God by "opening the womb" (Ex. 13:2), the very sign and symbol of Jewish sanctification (Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch). Rabbi Hirsch points out that in the precise definition of the scripture, "opening the womb" is the formulaic sign of how and why the firstborn of Jewish parents is sanctified as a "Jew." But then Rabbi Hirsch wonders out loud in his Chumash how "opening the womb" can distinguish the firstborn from all other children since presumably all children "open the womb" on exit.

. . . Which segues back to the other symbol of the Jewish firstborn: his parents and their wedding bond/covenant. The father-in-law ritually emasculates his son-in-law under the chuppah so that their firstborn son will have to "open the womb" that remains hermetically (the hymen) sealed by reason of his father's emasculation. The Jewish firstborn is the first human born the way the first human would have been born in the garden if not for the original desecration leading to the original sin. The first Jewish firstborn is as Adam's son would have been had not Cain usurped the first Jewish firstborn after the veil in the temple of the human body had been desecrated by the serpent in the very conception of Cain.

As Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan points out (more than once) circumcision in some manner returns the human race to prelapsarian times, the time before the Fall in the garden. It does this by representing a form of procreation born of "breath" rather than semen: the tongue rather than the phallus. Rabbi Kaplan also notes, with others, specifically Scholem, that a primal flaw occurs in the original desecration and sin, such that things are turned upside down, backwards. Even the symbols of ritual circumcision are distorted to hide what ritual circumcision would reveal.

Ritual circumcision has three primary stages, milah, periah, metzitzah. According to the idea of a primal flaw that inverts the truth of the symbolism, metzitzah (which is normally last of the three stages) should be first. The mohel "breaths" spiritual life into the flesh as the first stage of conception. The second stage is periah, which is tearing the membrane of virginity with nails in the hand rather than by means of phallic-sex. If life is breathed into the flesh (per the original creation of man) then that life can be born out of the flesh with the human body intact. The newborn will "open" the still sanctified temple (the veil is intact) of the human body. . . Lastly is milah. The flesh of the phallus is cut out of Jewish procreation and birth. It's cut out of the process, and removed from the human body. It's existence there is a desecration of God's original design (Gen. 2:21).




John

So in other words, you have no answer to my question and making a patchwork explanation of some bizarre idea which is not at all related to Judaism. For example, no father in law emasculates his son under the chuppah. In fact, the father in law need not be at the chuppah, and has no function in relation to the groom, so that's out. The father in law, by the way is Choten, not chatan The consonants are shared because the words are related. Taking a quote from Hirsch or the Ibn Ezra and trying to tie them together doesn't validate a single thing you have said. And that bit about "nails in the hand" is pure Christian dogma. Don't quit your day job.

 

[Thanda]

In this thread I have not made any anti-religious, ant-Semitic, or anti-biblical arguments. But you are wrong. You do not understand simple biology. And the truth does matter.

You said:And I am just trying to get you to understand that you are wrong. This is not an attack on the Bible, or on Judaism. But the simple fact is you - Tumah - are wrong. Do you understand that?

Just remind me again: what are the chances that a girl who is not a virgin will leave blood on the sheet?

 

[Thanda]

I said there was an emphasis on female virginity. And I would say that is true given the outline for the "virginity test" given in the OP. Does it not say that a woman's not being a virgin can be punishable by death? Seems like a heavy punishment for something that isn't important at all.

It may be unimportant to you.

 

[John D. Brey]

So in other words, you have no answer to my question and making a patchwork explanation of some bizarre idea which is not at all related to Judaism. For example, no father in law emasculates his son under the chuppah. In fact, the father in law need not be at the chuppah, and has no function in relation to the groom, so that's out. The father in law, by the way is Choten, not chatan The consonants are shared because the words are related. Taking a quote from Hirsch or the Ibn Ezra and trying to tie them together doesn't validate a single thing you have said. And that bit about "nails in the hand" is pure Christian dogma. Don't quit your day job.

In some traditions the mohel sharpens his fingernail to sever the male hymen during periah (the second stage in a ritual circumcision). In that sense, the mohel tears the membrane of virginity (the male hymen) with the same nails in his hand that a virgin born Jewish firstborn would be forced to use if he were inclined to exit ("open the womb" Ex. 13:2) despite the fact that his father's serpent (having been removed in the marriage ceremony) hadn't previously severed that membrane for him. Moshiach is said to be related to a closed mem, a closed membrane, a closed womb, which he alone opens with his hand since it wasn't previously opened in a manner associated strictly with Gentile (Genitile) sex --- phallic-sex . . . which is passe so far as the true Jewish firstborn is concerned.


John

 

[SkepticThinker]

It may be unimportant to you.

I was responding to someone who was telling me that there was little emphasis on female sexuality and hence had very little importance.

I was pointing out that a death sentence for something so "unimportant" sounds absurd.

 

[rosends]

In some traditions the mohel sharpens his fingernail to sever the male hymen during periah (the second stage in a ritual circumcision). In that sense, the mohel tears the membrane of virginity (the male hymen) with the same nails in his hand that a virgin born Jewish firstborn would be forced to use if he were inclined to exit ("open the womb" Ex. 13:2) despite the fact that his father's serpent (having been removed in the marriage ceremony) hadn't previously severed that membrane for him. Moshiach is said to be related to a closed mem, a closed membrane, a closed womb, which he alone opens with his hand since it wasn't previously opened in a manner associated strictly with Gentile (Genitile) sex --- phallic-sex . . . which is passe so far as the true Jewish firstborn is concerned.


John

wow...that makes no sense. You are saying that an infant uses his fingernails to effect his own birth? The "father's serpent" was removed at marriage? Yeah. Good luck with that.

 

[fantome profane]

Just remind me again: what are the chances that a girl who is not a virgin will leave blood on the sheet?

I can't answer that question. And I am going to ask you what your point is in asking it?

But I do know of one study that said that 52% of sexually active girls between 13 and 19 had intact hymens (source). Now that is one study, and not a huge one. But whatever the exact percentage is the point is made. A hymen that does not tear the first time could still tear the second time, or the third, or the tenth, or not at all. And it could tear the first time with a different person. I can't tell you what the odds are, but it is possible and not that rare. Blood on the sheet is not proof of virginity, and the lack of it is not proof of the lack of virginity.

Virginity is a ridiculous concept anyway. Like there is some substantial difference between a women who has had a penis inside her and one who hasn't. It is just a stupid idea when you think about it.

Why do you ask?

 

[John D. Brey]

Like there is some substantial difference between a women who has had a penis inside her and one who hasn't. It is just a stupid idea when you think about it.

. . . That depends on the context in which you think about it? ------In a theological context, the female body represents a temple. The stone temples of the ancients represented virgin women. The temple in Athens was called the "Parthenon," the "Virgin" (parthenos). ----- The temple in Jerusalem was considered intact (as a temple) until the veil separating the "bedchamber" (Rashi) was torn. The most holy place of the temple represents the womb of a virgin woman. The veil is the hymen.

In Jewish symbolism Yom Kippur is the wedding day such that the groom is unmanned (the phallic bull is bled) and the blood of the bull is brought into the "bed chamber," the most holy place, such that the blood of the phallus (brit milah) rather than the seed of the serpent (semen) is brought behind the curtain of the virgin temple (without disturbing the veil of the temple: without transgressing the virginity of the temple) such that the blood of the serpent (brit milah), rather than the seed of the serpent (semen), causes the conception of a "new man," born of the blood of phallic-sex (brit milah as consummation of the Jewish wedding) rather than the seed of the male, semen, the original sin of phallic-sex.

The foregoing (if you will, but you won't) would seem fantastic, or perhaps belabored, except that a Jewish woman, writ large in the history of the human race, is said to have been in labor with a son conceived from the blood of phallic-sex, an emasculated pregnancy (leading to virgin birth), seemingly justifying the foregoing as a legitimate ritual (brit milah).

This is to say that virginity (the existence of a sacred place untrammeled by the serpent) is of the utmost importance since the salvation of mankind, the undoing of the crime in the Garden, is dependent on a child "opening the womb" of his mother whose body is still a temple (still has an intact hymen/veil/curtain) when he's conceived, and when he's born. The opening of the veil of the temple from the inside out, rather than the outside in, is the sign of our so great salvation, making the breaking of the hymen, how it's broken, from the inside out, or the outside in, of paramount importance.

A virgin is a sanctified temple (the veil is intact). The first man, the firstborn of creation, the new man, must come from a sanctified temple if the human race, which began with the original sin of phallic-sex, the contamination of the temple (tearing the hymen from the outside in), and thus contamination of the process of procreation, is to overcome the contamination, the source and cause of death, which was manufactured though the original sin of phallic-sex.

Ye must be born again. Not of the animal desire of a husband (phallic-sex), but of the word of God: the Gospel seed produced by the firstborn of creation. More are the sons and daughters of Jesus of Nazareth, born through his word, spoken in the light of day, than the sons and daughters of Abraham, conceived, naturally, in the dark of night (the Talmud prohibits phallic-sex during the light of day).



John

 

[John D. Brey]

wow...that makes no sense. You are saying that an infant uses his fingernails to effect his own birth? The "father's serpent" was removed at marriage? Yeah. Good luck with that.

Circumcision, in symbol, rather than rote practice, consists of three primary symbolic acts. The first is the removal of the flesh (milah). Scripture is clear that the removal of the foreskin is a "sign" of the actual circumcision, which is an emasculate pregnancy (the elimination of the entire flesh in the act of conception). Nevertheless, a practical Jew, practicing the practices of Judaism, isn't taught such things. Therefore, the second stage of a "ritual" circumcision (versus an actual circumcision), i.e., periah, severing the membrane of virginity with the mohel's fingernail, means next to nothing to the practical Jew practicing the practices of Judaism.

But if a Jew realizes that removal of the foreskin symbolize spiritual emasculation, the end of phallic-sex, the end of the reign of the serpent-god, then and only then would periah make perfect sense since, if the flesh (uncircumcision, i.e., the entire phallus) is removed, then the Jewish firstborn, the real Jewish firstborn, not the ritual Jewish firstborn (who is merely A Token Jew, and not the real deal) is forced to fulfill the symbolism of the mohel severing the membrane of virginity (periah) with a fingernail rather than it being naturally torn through phallic-sex.

. . . Same with metzitzah, the final symbolic act in a ritual circumcision. For the practical Jew practicing the practices of Judaism (drained of their symbolic import) metzitzah is practically meaningless.

But if milah (cutting off the foreskin) represents emasculation, such that periah (tearing the membrane of virginity) represents virgin birth (the firstborn Jew, Messiah, opening a closed mem--brane), then metzitzah is replacing the lost flesh, the phallus, with the breath-of-life that comes not through a sewer pipe, but through the mouth, the word of truth, of the firstborn of all creation, the first actual Jew, who's born of an emasculate pregnancy, who opens the membrane of virginity at his birth, and who proceeds to provide the seed of the new birth, the opportunity to be "born-again," not through the animal desires of a husband, in the dark of night (the only time the Talmud allows phallic-sex) but in the light of day. Not by reason of the desires of the serpent, but the desire of the fallen man who wishes to return to the time before the Fall, before the reign of the serpent, the reign of death, the person seeking everlasting life (as impractical as that might seem to Jews who practice the mere practices of Judaism).



John

 

[rosends]

the removal of the foreskin is a "sign" of the actual circumcision, which is an emasculate pregnancy (the elimination of the entire flesh in the act of conception)
...
the end of phallic-sex, the end of the reign of the serpent-god
...
the first actual Jew, who's born of an emasculate pregnancy, who opens the membrane of virginity at his birth, and who proceeds to provide the seed of the new birth, the opportunity to be "born-again,"
John

yeah, when you start with that little piece of fiction you have lost me. Good luck.

 

[John D. Brey]

yeah, when you start with that little piece of fiction you have lost me. Good luck.

The foundational sign of Jewish identity is circumcision. Circumcision is a sign and a mitzvah. The significance of the sign of circumcision is secondarily called a "decree" a chok, a mitzah whose meaning is not understood rationally until Moshiah comes such that he will reveal the rational meaning of the decree.

Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled and revealed all three elements of a ritual circumcision by the time he let out his first cry.

Milah ----- His father's flesh was absent when he was conceived.
Periah ---- He severed the membrane of virginity with his fingernails at birth.
Metzitzah -- God breathed life into his body after the absence of the phallus so that he can exhale the breath of God on all who will receive him.


John

 

[rosends]

The foundational sign of Jewish identity is circumcision. Circumcision is a sign and a mitzvah. The significance of the sign of circumcision is secondarily called a "decree" a chok, a mitzah whose meaning is not understood rationally until Moshiah comes such that he will reveal the rational meaning of the decree.

Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled and revealed all three elements of a ritual circumcision by the time he let out his first cry.

Milah ----- His father's flesh was absent when he was conceived.
Periah ---- He severed the membrane of virginity with his fingernails at birth.
Metzitzah -- God breathed life into his body after the absence of the phallus so that he can exhale the breath of God on all who will receive him.


John

so this is all Christian revisionist thinking, overlaying Christian ideology onto Judaism so as to justify itself. Fine, carry on.

 

[John D. Brey]

so this is all Christian revisionist thinking, overlaying Christian ideology onto Judaism so as to justify itself. Fine, carry on.

It's only "Christian" if it's rejected by Judaism. In my mind it's more Jewish than Christian. . . I challenge you to read the message again and tell me what part is false from a Jewish perspective? A chok is a decree awaiting the arrival of Messiah. Circumcision is a chok. Milah is removal of flesh from the male organ of procreation. Jesus allegedly was born without the male flesh of procreation (it was cut from his conception). Periah is tearing the membrane on the male body, that, without testosterone, becomes the hymen on the female body. Jesus, if his father's flesh was cut out of his conception (milah) did perform periah by tearing the membrane of virginity at birth. . . Lastly, if the male flesh was cut out of his conception, God would have had to breath life into the ovum that's normally caused to generate life by the semen. Metzitzah.

If Jesus is Messiah, then his birth revealed all the hidden meaning of milah, periah, and metzitzah. . . Do you suppose, when the Jewish Messiah arrives, he will be capable of revealing a meaning for milah, periah, and metzitzah, more fitting than the one associated with the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish firstborn of the highest order?


John

 

[rosends]

It's only "Christian" if it's rejected by Judaism.

Um. no, It is Christian if it embraces Christian theology, which it does.

In my mind it's more Jewish than Christian. . .

So? If your mind is ignorant of Judaism, then your position on what is Judaism is not very useful.

I challenge you to read the message again and tell me what part is false from a Jewish perspective?

Can we start with "Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled and revealed all three elements of a ritual circumcision by the time he let out his first cry. "?
Then move to "His father's flesh was absent when he was conceived." According to Judaism, it takes a father's flesh to conceive a child. Should I continue?

Jesus allegedly was born without the male flesh of procreation (it was cut from his conception).

and since you said that circumcision is the foundational sign of Jewish identity, Jesus wasn't Jewish. Well proven!

Jesus, if his father's flesh was cut out of his conception (milah) did perform periah by tearing the membrane of virginity at birth

except that, A) a father's flesh can't be absent from a conception and B) if he was already circumcised at birth, no embrane was present to be torn. Sorry.

. . . Lastly, if the male flesh was cut out of his conception, God would have had to breath life into the ovum that's normally caused to generate life by the semen. Metzitzah.

But, again, the former is impossible and the latter would be unnecessary. And the ovum is unfertilized, so no metzitzah is done on an unfertilized egg.

If Jesus is Messiah, then his birth revealed all the hidden meaning of milah, periah, and metzitzah

Ah, but he's not, so it isn't! Well said!