Prototype or Convert?

Joseph said:

G‑d told Abraham (Genesis 17:7) “And I will establish My covenant between Me and between you and between your seed after you throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant, to be to you for a G‑d and to your seed after you.” G‑d commanded Abraham to circumcise himself and all of his male descendants. G‑d commanded the Jewish people (Leviticus 12:2), “On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised."

Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 2) explains that the reason for circumcision is to create a permanent sign on the Jewish body that differentiates it from the body of a gentile. The Talmud writes that “a woman is considered to be naturally circumcised.” Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch writes in his commentary to Genesis 17:15 that "Women don’t require an external sign of the covenant because they naturally feel committed to G‑d."

Click to expand...

. . . Concerning you're first paragraph we have Rabbi Hirsch pointing out that:


So a new covenant isn't established with Abraham. The original covenant with mankind, enacted between Adam and God (and rescinded with the Fall), is renewed with Abraham. . . Which segues nicely with your second paragraph since the "sign" of the renewal of the original covenant is the crossing-out (literally) of the mark directly associated with the rescinding of the original covenant (the mark whose genesis is narrated in Genesis 2:21).

The first manufactured mark, sign, scar, on the human body, is created at Genesis 2:21 when, according to Midrash Rabbah, Bere****h, XVII, 6, Adam is fitted with a means of urinating more discretely: he acquires a phallus. The mark marking the first amendment to God's original design still exists on the human body in the guise of the penile-raphe which is the natural suture marking the time and place of the manufacture of the penis from what was otherwise the female form of genitalia.

Do you now see why women don't require the new mark that marks the end of the reign of the old mark?

Their bodies are the original, the prototype, Adam's pre-Genesis 2:21 body. The female body wasn't "female" until after Genesis 2:21, when two distinct genders came out of the creation of the first penis (which, the penis, is the source for gender-differentiation according to the Jewish sages). Eliminate the penis and there's neither male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, since the organ associated with the reign of difference, which Professor Wolfson calls "the reign of the phallus," has come to its end.

When God decides to re-establish the original covenant with Abraham what's the first thing he has Abraham do? He has him manufacture a brand new scar that literally crosses (seriously) out the original scar associated with the original sin (the "original sin" being the manufacture and subsequent use of the phallus). The circumcision scar cuts perpendicularly across the penile-raphe creating a Latin cross on the underside of the fleshly organ manufactured at Genesis 2:21.

The Jewish sages remark (so to say) that when the covenant-cutting is performed the "sign" of God himself is revealed on the flesh where the cutting occurs. A Latin cross x-ing out the penile-raphe is cut into the offending flesh that's in the cross-hairs when the covenant cutting occurs. The mark of God, if the sages are to be believed, is manufactured on the flesh associated with the original gender reassignment surgery. The mark of God is manufactured when the mark of circumcision crosses (perpendicular to the penile-raphe) the mark of the original sin. ------Women don't need the mark of circumcision because they have no penile-raphe; their body is either God's original and complete design, or a closer version of the original design than any body with the offending and offensive flesh.



John

John D. Brey said:

. Concerning you're first paragraph we have Rabbi Hirsch pointing out that:

The combination of ברית and נתן almost never occurs elsewhere . . . As a rule, the formula is הקים ברית כרת ברית, not נתן ברית. It is possible then, that ואתנה בריתי does not mean "I will establish with you a new covenant," but, rather, "I will transfer to you an existing covenant."

Hirsch Chumash at Genesis 17:2.
So a new covenant isn't established with Abraham. The original covenant with mankind, enacted between Adam and God (and rescinded with the Fall), is renewed with Abraham. . .

Click to expand...

You're a liar and perhaps one of the worst examples of a religious person on this site. You repeatedly twist and lie about Jewish sources to misrepresent them as conforming to your sick theology.


He clearly explains that the covenant he's referring to, is the one given to Noah after the flood that He would not destroy the world again.

Tumah said:

He clearly explains that the covenant he's referring to, is the one given to Noah after the flood that He would not destroy the world again.

Click to expand...

Every quotation requires taking a small part out of a larger context since that's kinda what a quotation is and requires, i.e., quoting some part of a book, or statement, without re-writing the entire book or statement. ----- The part of Rabbi Hirsch I quoted stands apart from his own best guess, or hypothesis, about why the covenant transferred to Abraham represents not a new covenant, but a re-establishment of an original covenant. In other words, Rabbi Hirsch states clearly that the language of 17:2 implies the possibility that God isn't establishing a new covenant, but re-newing an existing covenant.

Not only is Rabbi Hirsch's hypothesis (which follows his recognition that the language suggests a renewal rather than a new covenant) merely a wild guess, but it's not even a good guess since the "sign" of the renewal of the preexistent covenant (i.e., circumcision) is the symbolic removal of the flesh the Talmud, Sanhedrin 38b, claims was added (rescinding the original covenant between Adam and God) in Genesis 2:21.

God is re-establishing the most important covenant ever enacted, the original covenant between God and man, established with Adam before Adam has the flesh associated with gender (gender reassignment surgery, Genesis 2:21) added to his body therein desecrating God's original design, plan, and covenant.

How natural then for God to tell Abraham to symbolically remove the very flesh, the addition of which, rescinded the original covenant between God and pre-gendered humanity leading to expulsion from Eden and wandering in exile through the realm of death?

On the other hand, what does bleeding the fleshly appendage added to the original covenant (thereby revoking it) have to do with the flood, or the reestablishment of the covenant after the flood? Nothing about the covenant re-established in Genesis chapter 17 appears to have even a general association with the flood, or Noah, while everything about it has to do with the genitals, gender, fertility, all of which required an amendment to the original covenant, which amendment we find described in Genesis 2:21.


John

Tumah said:

He clearly explains that the covenant he's referring to, is the one given to Noah after the flood that He would not destroy the world again.

Click to expand...

. . . This begs the question why, if the covenant is "given to Noah" (to quote you) it would need to be given to Abraham? -----God seems to have given the covenant in question to Noah, though you put words in Rabbi Hirsch's mouth (as you're wont to accuse me of doing) since he (Rabbi Hirsch) doesn't mention Noah.

According to Jewish tradition, Noah, like Abraham, is impotent at the time the covenant is established. God clearly knows that Noah and Abraham are both impotent at the time the covenant is established, such that they can't fulfill a covenant commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" in the natural, normal, pre-senescent way?

And just here we see why both Rabbi Hirsch and I too can both be correct in our exegesis since whereas Isaac is born irregardless of Abraham's senescence, Canaan too is born irregardless of Noah's senescence. Canaan's birth, like Cain's before him, rescinds the covenant before it's even given birth to the firstborn of creation (Messiah).

In the Jewish tradition, Noah (who was impotent at the time the covenant was established, ala Abraham), becomes so distraught at his impotence, and thus his inability to fulfill the covenant, that he starts making wine and becoming drunk and disorderly. So Ham hatches a plot with Naamah (Noah's wife) to uncover her nakedness (a biblical term speaking of sex) so that Noah will think he has impregnated Naamah (his wife).

This leads to the birth of the nephilim-child Canaan in the likeness of Cain and the nephilm who contaminated the daughters of Seth, returning mankind to the same problem that existed prior to the Flood.

Ergo the need for Abraham to ratify the covenant Noah and Ham screwed up with the birth of Canaan (in the likeness of Cain).

For the covenant intended for Noah to be fulfilled by Abraham, Sarah needs to have a child despite the fact that Abraham is impotent. She needs to give virgin birth to the first Jew.

So important is the fact that Sarah, unlike Naamah, must conceive a child in the way God originally intended, without phallic-sex, without mixing genes and DNA, that although God establishes the same covenant with Abraham that Noah screwed up, God this time establishes the sign of the covenant as Abraham taking a knife to the phallus so that neither Abraham, nor you or I, get confused about what God intended for Noah, and Abraham, i.e., that a human being give birth without mixing DNA, or genes, so that the product of the birth is not a hybrid (nephilim) of any kind, but a basal-shoot, an asexual Sprout (Isaiah 11) out of the original root of humanity: pre-lapsed, pre-gendered, Adam.


John