John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
. . . A serious student of the Bible would note that two genealogies are given for the purported first born Jew. One is though the line of his strangely estranged (cut out of his own son's conception) father, Joseph, while the other goes through his mother, Mary. The same serious student of the Bible would scratch his or her head when they see that the father's genealogy goes only to Abraham, while his mother's goes all the way back to Adam?
Jesus' male line gets cut off when Abraham cuts off the means for patrilineal descent. So not only is Joseph himself cut out of Jesus' descent, but this cutting off of the male line of descent is shown, by Joseph's genealogy, to be directly associated with the covenant-cut made by Abraham: ritual emasculation.
On the other hand, or genealogy, Mary's line goes all the way back to Adam, since unlike the seed of the serpent, cut off at Abraham, the Seed of the Woman goes all the way back to Genesis 3:15.
And yet the opening Abraham cuts in the flesh of the serpent goes beyond all that.
In the early years of the church, just after the split that separated Judaism into two faiths, Jewish and Christian, the Catholic Church was intent on trying to completely unify the Gospels with the Tanakh. And they had brilliant Jewish/Christian scholars straining their brains to the breaking point in order to accomplish that task.
Into that theological zeitgeist rose the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Without boring everyone to tears with all the whys and wherefores, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception pictures Mary as though she were prelapse Adam (Adam before he becomes a male at Genesis 2:21). In this bizarre, but theologically brilliant doctrine, Mary, representing the first, non-phallic human, the adam, gives birth to her husband, the Lord (Gen. 4:1), so that the two of them, as genetic clones, will create a genealogically perfect civilization. Beyond belief, Rashi's exegesis of Genesis 1:11, and Genesis 4:1, lends immense support to doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Mary's genealogy goes back all the way to Adam before the sin. Implying that Jesus is Adam's firstborn son, belated no doubt, his birth being made possible, symbolically by ritual emasculation, and in reality, by virgin birth. The female ovum is the last vestige of Adam's prelapse flesh such that if not contaminated through the act that caused the fall in the first place, it gives birth to Adam's non-phallic firstborn (as I laid out for you in detail in the thread on Colossians 1:18).
When scholars dig these exegetical gems out from under the soil of the text, they put them through the crucible of strong exegesis to turn what the hoi polloi see as worthless rocks into priceless diamonds thereafter used as the prism for examining even more difficult passages of scripture.
Case in point. . . In Genesis 17:17, Abraham falls on his face laughing while asking God if a man who is one hundred years old should have a son? To those who napped during Sunday school, there's nothing remarkable about this verse. While for serious students of the Word of God, it's one of the most difficult passages in the entire scripture since not only was it common for men in Abraham's day to father offspring as centenarians, heck, they often lived well into their second century, and not only did Abraham father numerous young long after Isaac, but, if you can believe this, Abraham's father was over a hundred years old when he fathered Abraham.
In his Torah commentary Rabbi Elie Munk lends exegetical support to the oddity of Genesis 17:17 by pointing out that in the Hebrew Abraham's laughing is completely out of context? Rabbi Munk scratches his head wondering what's going on? The Hebrew is out of sorts with the narrative.
And yet Rabbi Munk is surely aware of just how flexible the unpointed Hebrew text is when you already know where its pointing better than the Masoretes did.
To cut to the chase, in Genesis 17:17, Abraham doesn't laugh at the idea of a man having a son at 100 years of ages since his own birth made that no big deal. What a careful exegete can find beneath the profane narrative is that Abraham is laughing at a far more incredible state of affairs. In the Hebrew text, God tells Abraham that he's going to be Sarah's son. Sarah's husband (מת) is going to become her firstborn son. Sarah is going to marry, or has already married, her son.
Sarah, Mary, and Eve, represent the first Jew such that their sons represent the first "born" Jew, who, truth be known, will become their husband. Abraham is not only Isaac's father, but also his brother. Jesus is not only Mary's son, but her Lord, and her husband. Through Joseph Mary birthed natural born Jews while through Jesus she birthed the Church (Numbers chapter 5).
John
Jesus' male line gets cut off when Abraham cuts off the means for patrilineal descent. So not only is Joseph himself cut out of Jesus' descent, but this cutting off of the male line of descent is shown, by Joseph's genealogy, to be directly associated with the covenant-cut made by Abraham: ritual emasculation.
On the other hand, or genealogy, Mary's line goes all the way back to Adam, since unlike the seed of the serpent, cut off at Abraham, the Seed of the Woman goes all the way back to Genesis 3:15.
And yet the opening Abraham cuts in the flesh of the serpent goes beyond all that.
In the early years of the church, just after the split that separated Judaism into two faiths, Jewish and Christian, the Catholic Church was intent on trying to completely unify the Gospels with the Tanakh. And they had brilliant Jewish/Christian scholars straining their brains to the breaking point in order to accomplish that task.
Into that theological zeitgeist rose the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Without boring everyone to tears with all the whys and wherefores, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception pictures Mary as though she were prelapse Adam (Adam before he becomes a male at Genesis 2:21). In this bizarre, but theologically brilliant doctrine, Mary, representing the first, non-phallic human, the adam, gives birth to her husband, the Lord (Gen. 4:1), so that the two of them, as genetic clones, will create a genealogically perfect civilization. Beyond belief, Rashi's exegesis of Genesis 1:11, and Genesis 4:1, lends immense support to doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Mary's genealogy goes back all the way to Adam before the sin. Implying that Jesus is Adam's firstborn son, belated no doubt, his birth being made possible, symbolically by ritual emasculation, and in reality, by virgin birth. The female ovum is the last vestige of Adam's prelapse flesh such that if not contaminated through the act that caused the fall in the first place, it gives birth to Adam's non-phallic firstborn (as I laid out for you in detail in the thread on Colossians 1:18).
When scholars dig these exegetical gems out from under the soil of the text, they put them through the crucible of strong exegesis to turn what the hoi polloi see as worthless rocks into priceless diamonds thereafter used as the prism for examining even more difficult passages of scripture.
Case in point. . . In Genesis 17:17, Abraham falls on his face laughing while asking God if a man who is one hundred years old should have a son? To those who napped during Sunday school, there's nothing remarkable about this verse. While for serious students of the Word of God, it's one of the most difficult passages in the entire scripture since not only was it common for men in Abraham's day to father offspring as centenarians, heck, they often lived well into their second century, and not only did Abraham father numerous young long after Isaac, but, if you can believe this, Abraham's father was over a hundred years old when he fathered Abraham.
In his Torah commentary Rabbi Elie Munk lends exegetical support to the oddity of Genesis 17:17 by pointing out that in the Hebrew Abraham's laughing is completely out of context? Rabbi Munk scratches his head wondering what's going on? The Hebrew is out of sorts with the narrative.
And yet Rabbi Munk is surely aware of just how flexible the unpointed Hebrew text is when you already know where its pointing better than the Masoretes did.
To cut to the chase, in Genesis 17:17, Abraham doesn't laugh at the idea of a man having a son at 100 years of ages since his own birth made that no big deal. What a careful exegete can find beneath the profane narrative is that Abraham is laughing at a far more incredible state of affairs. In the Hebrew text, God tells Abraham that he's going to be Sarah's son. Sarah's husband (מת) is going to become her firstborn son. Sarah is going to marry, or has already married, her son.
Sarah, Mary, and Eve, represent the first Jew such that their sons represent the first "born" Jew, who, truth be known, will become their husband. Abraham is not only Isaac's father, but also his brother. Jesus is not only Mary's son, but her Lord, and her husband. Through Joseph Mary birthed natural born Jews while through Jesus she birthed the Church (Numbers chapter 5).
John
ד׳
חכמה עצה דעת רוחויראתד׳וגבורהובינה
רוח
רוח
רוח
ח
ו
ט
ר
ג ז ע
חכמה עצה דעת רוחויראתד׳וגבורהובינה
רוח
רוח
רוח
ח
ו
ט
ר
ג ז ע
Last edited:
