• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Genesis 17:17: Mind's Retroactive Conception.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

squiggy-david-lander.jpg


HELLO!


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
not at all

. . . I would say the Gospels are the origin of the Tanakh, hidden inside the Tanakh, for safe-keeping, guarding, until God's good time.

I would say the first human's soul, was hidden inside the animal flesh garments, for safe-keeping, guarding, until a time when it won't need the animal flesh garment any longer.

That time is rapidly approaching like the hoof-beats of the four horses of the apocalypse.


John
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
. . . I would say the Gospels are the origin of the Tanakh, hidden inside the Tanakh, for safe-keeping, guarding, until God's good time.

I would say the first human's soul, was hidden inside the animal flesh garments, for safe-keeping, guarding, until a time when it won't need the animal flesh garment any longer.

That time is rapidly approaching like the hoof-beats of the four horses of the apocalypse.


John
Jesus came to reveal... not hide
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I shall reveal a vision I have posted only one other time

when soooooo much younger.....my grandmother warns to me
do NOT go down the sidewalk toward town
you are safe here at the house.....stay near the house

that must have invoked the dream

I saw myself leaving the house ....out the front door
not my usual exit

I go to the sidewalk and proceed to that direction....not allowed

I did not go far
a section of pavement dropped out from under me and I fell as if a trap door had opened

I tumbled down into a large room
through blood red velour drapes......the kind you see in funeral homes

standing to my feet I could see....I would not be going back the way I came

I turn to the scene around me....no other option
and before me stands a vast collection of busts
each one white
each one mounted upon a pedestal to the height of the person represented

cob webs covered all

the room was large... too large ...to see ceiling or wall

and the only recourse......pass by the images
one and all

this is as far back as my memory goes
nothing precedes this

. . . How do you interpret the dream?



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
You seem intent on uniting Judaism and Christianity in some deep and profound way, which is fine I suppose, since there is truth in anything that endures the test of time, but I don’t see how you are making the point that the world is a mess because of this disunity. I’m open to hearing your elaboration on this.

. . . The first human had what today would be considered a female body. The was no male organ at that time so technically ha-adam's body wasn't female. It was all there was. It only becomes female after Genesis 2:21 when and where the first male organ is manufactured by closing up some flesh, labial flesh, precisely as occurs in the womb if the Y chromosome has its way.

The Masoretic text, Jewish tradition and orthodoxy, teach that ha-adam was a male, and possessed a male organ from the get-go. This is utterly false, and is a bastardization of the Hebrew text.

What was added to ha-adam's female body in Genesis 2:21, Abraham ritually removed to re-establish the original covenant between God and humanity, a covenant that makes God's blood the soul, or groom, and every human body the female recipient of God's blood (John 6:53).

No error is as egregious to a proper understanding of cosmology, theology, and philosophy, as is the error of starting off human history with a human possessing the male organ. Dante made it the central pillar in hell, and throughout human history it has represented the serpent and death.

It's manufacture on the first human's body is the desecration that led to the original sin, and thus the birth of the born murderer Cain.


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
birth.....into a dead world

haven't you noticed?

. . . Ok. I see what you're getting at.

I like that dream/vision. How long did it take you to put it into the context of being born into a dead world? Was that something you thought about right away, or only in retrospection from some time after the dream/vision?


John
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
. . . Ok. I see what you're getting at.

I like that dream/vision. How long did it take you to put it into the context of being born into a dead world? Was that something you thought about right away, or only in retrospection from some time after the dream/vision?


John
I was less than six years of age when the dream came

I know that with certainty as the house we lived in.....we moved from
and the school years had barely begun

and yeah.....I was much older before the vision came to realization
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I was less than six years of age when the dream came

I know that with certainty as the house we lived in.....we moved from
and the school years had barely begun

and yeah.....I was much older before the vision came to realization

. . . It's pretty amazing how the archetypes exist in the mind even at an early age. And the subconscious mind is more alive with them than the conscious mind. Which kinda implies, imo, that we should take dreams and visions more seriously rather than treating them like they're the work of little children.

Which is to say, imo, that that vision is likely more mature than you or I are today. If visions like that are little children then we should become more like them so that we can enter the Kingdom of God.



John
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
. . . It's pretty amazing how the archetypes exist in the mind even at an early age. And the subconscious mind is more alive with them than the conscious mind. Which kinda implies, imo, that we should take dreams and visions more seriously rather than treating them like they're the work of little children.

Which is to say, imo, that that vision is likely more mature than you or I are today. If visions like that are little children then we should become more like them so that we can enter the Kingdom of God.



John
I like your post

but I believe maturity comes late in life
to say the vision is given .....and life is the affirmation
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I've spilled no small amount of ink on the subject of the mess the Masoretes have made of the Hebrew of the sacred text of the Torah. And though Genesis 17:17 could be the poster-child for the mess, and though it's a subject worthy of the greatest care, that's not the point of this thread.

This thread is about one of the most obvious, to a theist, points of observation possible, i.e., the life-giving design inherent to, in, the world, the universe/cosmos, versus the truly asinine implication, of the non-theist, that there's no mindful design inherent to the design of the world, the universe/cosmos.

In Genesis 17:17, the correct interpretation of the Hebrew text has Abram exasperated with God over the dynamics of the covenant God is engaging him. As Rabbi Elie Munk points out (R. Samson Hirsch beat him to the punch), in his brilliant, The Call of the Torah, strictly and literally interpreted, Genesis 17:17 says not that Abram laughed, but that he literally insulted God in a harsh and frustrated way. And his frustration is understood when we realize that the text isn't saying Abram is going to give birth when he's already 99 years old, since, for godsake, his father was older than that when he conceived Abram, and one of Abram's sons gave birth well past the penultimate year of a full century.

Without getting into the exegetical desperation for why the Masoretes imply the text has Abram laughing at giving birth at an age that was common in his day, we can point out that correctly exegeted the Hebrew text says that far from Abram birthing a son at 99, something a man in his day would find yawn-worthy (I personally know a woman whose father was pushing Abram's age when she was conceived), Abram is in truth exasperated that God tells him he's going to be reborn, and that he's going to conceive his new man, Abra-h-am, through his wife/sister.


John
What word would you put instead of ויצחק?
And which particular Masorete bothers you: Ben-Asher or Ben-Naftali?
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
What word would you put instead of ויצחק?
And which particular Masorete bothers you: Ben-Asher or Ben-Naftali?

. . . I'm not sure I understand either question. I wouldn't put any word in place of ויצחק. God forbid. <s>

I'm saying the Hebrew exegetes point out that interpreting/translating the the word "laugh" as though Abraham is giggling in a sporty way with God, is wrong since ויצהק is followed by the text telling us that he "said in his heart." As the sages point out, wherever the Hebrew text says someone says something in their heart, what they say is evil, hateful, or wrongheaded.

. . . And here's what's evil, hateful, and wrongheaded about how Jewish tradition, as passed down by the Masoretes, misinterpret the text: scripture records for us precisely what Abraham says, "in his heart." And what he says is distorted by the Masoretic interpretation of the text.

What he says (in his heart) is, "Can a hundred year old be born as though he could enter back into a womb to come out again? That's plumb asinine!"

Can you kinda see where the MT would have a problem interpreting the Hebrew text literally? Particularly since a person in John 3:4 nails the Hebrew of Genesis 17:17 perfectly. And Jesus, laughing, sportingly, asks Abraham's latter day son, Have you studied Genesis 17:17 as a teacher of the Jews and not seen that it proclaims a man must be born again to become a Jew?

Therefore, the physical birth of the child is completed on the seventh day. The eighth day [the day of circumcision], the octave of birth, as it were, repeats the day of birth, but as a day of higher, spiritual birth for his Jewish mission and his Jewish destiny.

Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch.​



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Just curious, you always seem to throw in other faith (Mayan, Hindu, etc) why?

C. M. Cioran said that professor of religion Mircea Eliade "stands in the periphery of every religion by profession as well as by conviction." No religion gets it all right. They're all taking a stab at Jesus on the cross whether they're doing it to kill him, or to see what he's made of, or perhaps like blind men just trying to stake a claim to something in order to anchor their existence.


John
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
. . . I'm not sure I understand either question.
You stated that you're bothered by the Masoretes. The two most famous Masoretes were Ben-Asher and Ben-Naftali. I'm curious as to which one of them bothers you the most?
ויצהק
Typo?
I'm saying the Hebrew exegetes point out that interpreting/translating the the word "laugh" as though Abraham is giggling in a sporty way with God, is wrong since ויצהק is followed by the text telling us that he "said in his heart." As the sages point out, wherever the Hebrew text says someone says something in their heart, what they say is evil, hateful, or wrongheaded.
It sounds to me that your problem isn't with the Masoretes but with Jewish commentators.
(Just to make sure we're on the same page in terms of who the Masoretes are, this is what I think about when I hear "Masoretes" - Masoretes - Wikipedia)
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
You stated that you're bothered by the Masoretes. The two most famous Masoretes were Ben-Asher and Ben-Naftali. I'm curious as to which one of them bothers you the most?

. . . I'm generalizing the Masoretic Text as representative of the Masoretes who devised it.


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
ויצהק

Typo?

. . . A type oh say like the Freudian slip of the mohel's wrist since a chet ח is closed on both sides and the top such that sinners descend mostly to hell unless the mohel cuts a space where they can ascend to paradise ה.

Which is a fancy way of saying יעחק wasn't really born as the circumcision, that's Abraham. Isaac must have a cut opening him up so that he can roll in the heh with his wife without fearing birthing goyim. . . Only if you can see ע that is the ayin replaced by the tsaddik צ.


John
 
Last edited:
Top