John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
The thread, What Did Jesus Look Like Naked, began with a quotation from Midrash Tanchuma 11:
The thread noted above insinuated that the quotation from Midrash Tanchuma was speaking of Jesus of Nazareth as the one born circumcised. In that thread, circumcision is said to be something like neutering, or ritual emasculation, forcing the bride, if she's to conceive a child at all, to do so as a virgin, since the groom is neutered, or emasculated, and thus can't add anything to the pregnancy. Ironically Jewish law claims the father is inconsequential to the Jewish-ness of the child. If the mother is Jewish and the father Gentile, the child is still Jewish. But if the father is Jewish and the mother Gentile, the child is not Jewish. The father has no role in the Jewish-ness of the child.
Jesus' alleged virgin birth would make him the sole Jewish firstborn literally born of a circumspect, in this case circumcised, i.e., emasculated, neutered, pregnancy.
As fate would have it, and as has happened too many times to count, an interlocutor noted that the passage quoted above was "cherry picked" in order to make it seem like it could be applicable to Jesus, when in fact the context of the text implied ----directly ----- that the text was speaking of Noah, and not Jesus. All one has to do is read further in the text quoted above (Midrash Tanchuma 11) to see that it appears, by expanding the context of the original quotation, that the quotation is speaking of Noah.
Unfortunately, the interlocutor who pointed out that by expanding the context even a little bit it becomes clear that the new context makes the text speak of Noah specifically, and thus not Jesus or Messiah, might not care enough about the nature of exegesis and sound interpretation to realize that we can expand the text even further, and then again further, literally until we're speaking of the entire Tanakh as the feedback mechanism for interpreting the short quotation in the original thread. If, and when, we do that, we can, potentially, show that even though expanding the context to that part of Midrash Tanchuma 11 that makes it pretty clear that the text seems to be speaking of Noah, nevertheless, an expanded exegesis and interpretation, taking in a much broader context, can, legitimately show that in fact the text is not really speaking of Noah after all.
Showing that this is true is admittedly a tall order. But it can be done.
John
They were taught that when the Holy One, Blessed Is He, said to Adam, "Accursed is the ground because of you; through suffering will you eat from it all the days of your life." Then Adam said, "Master of the World! Until when?" He said to him, "Until a man will be born circumcised."
Midrash Tanchuma, Bereshis 11.
Midrash Tanchuma, Bereshis 11.
The thread noted above insinuated that the quotation from Midrash Tanchuma was speaking of Jesus of Nazareth as the one born circumcised. In that thread, circumcision is said to be something like neutering, or ritual emasculation, forcing the bride, if she's to conceive a child at all, to do so as a virgin, since the groom is neutered, or emasculated, and thus can't add anything to the pregnancy. Ironically Jewish law claims the father is inconsequential to the Jewish-ness of the child. If the mother is Jewish and the father Gentile, the child is still Jewish. But if the father is Jewish and the mother Gentile, the child is not Jewish. The father has no role in the Jewish-ness of the child.
Jesus' alleged virgin birth would make him the sole Jewish firstborn literally born of a circumspect, in this case circumcised, i.e., emasculated, neutered, pregnancy.
As fate would have it, and as has happened too many times to count, an interlocutor noted that the passage quoted above was "cherry picked" in order to make it seem like it could be applicable to Jesus, when in fact the context of the text implied ----directly ----- that the text was speaking of Noah, and not Jesus. All one has to do is read further in the text quoted above (Midrash Tanchuma 11) to see that it appears, by expanding the context of the original quotation, that the quotation is speaking of Noah.
Unfortunately, the interlocutor who pointed out that by expanding the context even a little bit it becomes clear that the new context makes the text speak of Noah specifically, and thus not Jesus or Messiah, might not care enough about the nature of exegesis and sound interpretation to realize that we can expand the text even further, and then again further, literally until we're speaking of the entire Tanakh as the feedback mechanism for interpreting the short quotation in the original thread. If, and when, we do that, we can, potentially, show that even though expanding the context to that part of Midrash Tanchuma 11 that makes it pretty clear that the text seems to be speaking of Noah, nevertheless, an expanded exegesis and interpretation, taking in a much broader context, can, legitimately show that in fact the text is not really speaking of Noah after all.
Showing that this is true is admittedly a tall order. But it can be done.
John
Last edited: