Kashering Christianity So A Jew Can Swallow It.

dybmh · May 20, 2021

John D. Brey said:
I consider the Gospels to be scripture. But when Peter denies he knows Jesus three times on the night he (Jesus) is betrayed, I don't take that as my marching orders (betray Jesus three times) even though it's indeed scriptural. Similarly, when the Talmud claims that Israel was looking up at the Father, even though the text says they were looking up at Nehushtan, I don't think the Talmud is lying, or twisting the truth. Quite the opposite. Jesus, who was lifted up, like Nehushtan, said that when you looked at him, you were seeing the Father. Which suggests a relationship between the cross in the Gospels and Nehushtan in the Talmud and Torah which only strengthens my resolve that these things are all interrelated.

A conclusion based on a chain of nuance is conspiracy theory or a farce. I've told you before I find the narrative creative, but not at all convincing.

John D. Brey said:
Semantics. In my opinion, the words "neutral" and "profane" mean the same thing in theology.

Poppy-cock. Provide a theological definition of both.

John D. Brey said:
I do agree with the Talmud when it says Jesus was a sorcerer who led Israel astray. I understand the context perfectly and believe in context it's inerrant and factual. Which is similar to how I do agree with the Talmud that by looking up at Nehushtan Israel was looking up at the Father.

Nope now you're omitting words from the text. They were looking "לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם" literally: to their Father in the Heavens. Serpents are cursed to the ground. Try again.

John D. Brey said:
One of my favorite Catholic scholars, Jean Luc-Marion, said that an idol stops the gaze as though what the penitent or worshiper is seeking is fully met in the idolatrous symbol, while for the true seeker of God, the idolatrous symbol can be a legitimate way-station helping negotiate between God's way out there otherworldliness versus the profane things of the world that are what all men's knowledge is based on.

The topic of the OP is how to make Jesus kosher. This opinion ^^ is not compatible with Judaism. Judaism does not tolerate idolatry, it would not allow it to be used as a way-station. Call it a deficiency if you want; but, that practice is off-limits for us.

Brickjectivity · May 20, 2021

John D. Brey said:
The idea seems simple to me. If the purpose of a sign is to signify, then what it signifies is the soul, or life, of the sign. The sign is the place (temple, body) where the soul resides until it's unveiled at such a time as when the sign is opened up to reveal what it signifies.

John

Oh, I still don't know anything about Rabbi Hirsch or even much about Rabbis except they are accredited experts, somewhat like our lawyers but also psychologists and anything else they have to be to accept the charge of interpreting laws fairly. Interpreting the laws tends to bring up questions about how people think and make decisions, and prior to Biology some methods for understanding this are meditation and philosophy. No doubt the sages use these tools. If someone sees a relation between souls and blood I take into account that it is likely psychological language in a pre-biology time. The sages discuss human drives and try to dissect them, though I don't remember how I know this. I think I scanned it online once. Souls are probably metalanguage for discussion of how to interpret the laws, because to judge fairly they probably find it necessary to try and understand how people think. They proceed to study the mind using all available tools and use the term soul somewhere in their semantics. What those semantics are I don't know, but I believe the sages study the human mind for this purpose.

I say that blood is the commonality between all the people in a gathering and all kosher animals. They all have this red juice inside, and it is not for eating. They may drink the blood of grapes, the blood of apples, the blood of citrons but not this blood. They don't drink it, not from any animal. This suggests that all share a common source of life, just as all breath the same air. They may get this from that one scripture that says the life is in the blood, but I don't know. Point is, the blood is shared just as we all share the air. Maybe souls can be shared.

dybmh · May 20, 2021

Dogknox20 said:
.
I reply... Jesus is the New Passover lamb of God.. All pascal lambs must be eaten!
Rev 5:6
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
Rev 13:8
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

If I recall the book of John says that Jesus was crucified the day after the first night of Passover. If so, he can't be the pascal lamb; the pascal lamb is not left over to the next day. Exo 12:10, he would have needed to suffer and die that night in order to fullfill the verses in Exo 12 about the pascal lamb.

John D. Brey · May 20, 2021

dybmh said:
Note you said that these two "equate writing" with idolatry. That's a big FALSE statement. Strike 3 you're out.

Fair enough. . . But as I also implied, or tried to imply, I consider idolatry a legitimate, even a necessary adjunct to true worship. As I read the quotations, the written word is like Nehushtan: an idolatrous (though necessary) staging area for true worship, oral worship.

We could say Nehushtan was given because of lack of faith and fidelity to the spoken words of God and Moses. Same with the written tablets which came only after Israel eschewed hearing God face-to-face and told Moses to go fetch them a written testimony of what God told Moses orally.

You're all still the same ole girl you used to be.

The ensuing chapters will grapple with the extent to which the discernment that the final iconoclastic achievement of monotheism calls for destroying the idol of the very God personified as the deity that must be worshiped without being idolized. As Henri Atlan deftly expressed the paradox, "the ultimate idol is the personal God of theology . . . the only discourse about God that is not idolatrous is necessarily an atheistic discourse. Alternatively, whatever the discourse, the only God who is not an idol is a God who is not a God."

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Giving Beyond the Gift, Preface.

John

dybmh · May 20, 2021

John D. Brey said:
Fair enough. . . But as I also implied, or tried to imply, I consider idolatry a legitimate, even a necessary adjunct to true worship. As I read the quotations, the written word is like Nehushtan: an idolatrous (though necessary) staging area for true worship ...

OK. Thank you. If you said this from the beginning I would not have objected so strongly. It's your take on the story, not Rabbi Hirsch's nor the sages of Kabbalah's take on the story. Claim it as yours.

We could say Nehushtan was given because of lack of faith and fidelity to the spoken words of God and Moses. Same with the written tablets which came only after Israel eschewed hearing God face-to-face and told Moses to go fetch them a written testimony of what God told Moses orally.

You can say it... but I simply don't read the story that way. It's the implication of "go fetch them". That sounds petulant. It's a valence applied to the story, not from the text.

You're all still the same ole girl you used to be.

We're a big-little nation.

The ensuing chapters will grapple with the extent to which the discernment that the final iconoclastic achievement of monotheism calls for destroying the idol of the very God personified as the deity that must be worshiped without being idolized. As Henri Atlan deftly expressed the paradox, "the ultimate idol is the personal God of theology . . . the only discourse about God that is not idolatrous is necessarily an atheistic discourse. Alternatively, whatever the discourse, the only God who is not an idol is a God who is not a God."

OK. Your source is Professor Wolfson, not Rabbi Hirsch, not the sages of Kabbalah. Hopefully that will be correctly cited in the future.

Dogknox20 · May 21, 2021

dybmh said:
Do I agree that loving God is doing God's commandments? yes

Why is there sin? The greater the challenge, the greater the reward. God wants to reward greatly; therefore God provides a very difficult challenge: redirect the evil urge towards holy pursuits. In this way God can see that all of creation is good.

There's no need. Safety from the Angel of Death was granted annually long before in Exo 12:42.

.
Do I agree that loving God is doing God's commandments? Yes!

Hello dybmh I hope all is well.... The scriptures tell us.. "God IS Love"! Adam did not love so he was removed from heaven! Adam sinned by FREELY deciding NOT to love! "Love is a CHOICE"!
Man was made in the image of God.. Only man can love.. Chickens Dogs Cows, sheep snails etc.... cannot love; only man can love... BUT..

dybmh but to love you need freedom of choice... Sure God could have given Adam a pill or something to make him love but then his love would not be truly.. LOVE! God knew there would be some men who would not chose to "Give of themselves from their heart to another person" He knew there would be some selfish people BUT... He took the chance to make man in his image! We needed free choice to love!
...
You asked.. Why is there sin? The greater the challenge, the greater the reward. God wants to reward greatly; therefore God provides a very difficult challenge: redirect the evil urge towards holy pursuits. In this way God can see that all of creation is good.
....
I reply.. Why is there sin? God does everything perfectly.. He created the world PERFECT! It was man that messed it up!

There is sin because Adam made a choice to NOT love God! Adam freely choose to not love so PERFECTION was destroyed by man! Sin brings death, so Adam' sin brought death into the world! WE.... (man) us...Sin!
You and I live is a corrupted world, we die because there is DEATH in Gods holy creation! WE (man) needed another perfect man to love God & to keep God' commandments! BUT...
dybmh but we were stuck between a rock and a hard spot... WE needed someone perfect but no man could be born perfect because all men are the descendants of the corrupted man Adam! All are born imperfect! Oh what a sorry lot man was!
dybmh God came to our rescue... God took the form of man, he was BORN MAN so he could die as a man! CAN'T...

dybmh can't die if first you are not born! Jesus was born perfect sinless uncorrupted! Jesus the Man/God died; because he was perfect (sinless) he popped up out of the tomb, sin could not hold him in the grave!
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

You pointed out.. There's no need. Safety from the Angel of Death was granted annually long before in Exo 12:42 Because the Lord kept vigil that night to bring them out of Egypt, on this night all the Israelites are to keep vigil to honor the Lord for the generations to come.
dybmh NEXT VERSE.. 43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover meal:

I reply Jesus is the New Passover lamb of God.. All pascal lambs must be eaten!
Rev 5:6
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
Rev 13:8
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

Dogknox20 · May 21, 2021

dybmh said:
If I recall the book of John says that Jesus was crucified the day after the first night of Passover. If so, he can't be the pascal lamb; the pascal lamb is not left over to the next day. Exo 12:10, he would have needed to suffer and die that night in order to fulfill the verses in Exo 12 about the pascal lamb.

.
dybmh Thank you for your post... Good question but you are off by a little!
Please be patient..* First point: Between the third cup the “cup of blessing.” and the fourth cup at the Passover meal they sing a song.. the “Great Hallel” (Psalms 114-118) and then they drink the (4) fourth cup of wine to finish the Passover meal.
Mark 14:24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
NOTE.. we read in: Mark 14:26 “And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives”.
dybmh They drank the third cup the cup of blessing but not the (4) forth cup! LOOK what happens at the Mount of Olives? (below)

Mark 14: 35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

dybmh Jesus is doing the will of God not his own will! (above verse) Did you see the mention of "The Cup"? This cup can only be the (4) forth cup the Passover meal is not yet finished! LOOK..

*Second point.. On the way to his crucifixion.. 23 Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it.

You would think a person losing so much blood would have been thirsty!? Jesus does not drink!

John 19:28 Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.”
29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips.
30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

The “It is finished.” means; the Passover meal is FINISHED, the (4) Forth Cup of wine has now been drank! ! Jesus is the new Lamb for the Passover meal all that remains is the the Lamb must be eaten! Note the Hyssop..
Exodus 12:22
Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and on both sides of the doorframe. None of you shall go out of the door of your house until morning.

The Passover Lamb must be unblemished, no broken bones!..
John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

Exodus 12:46
“It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.

dybmh The Passover meal was prepared the day before Sabbath! The New Passover Lamb was slaughtered before the Sabbath he died Friday buried before the Sabbath.
40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.
41 At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid.
42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

They put Jesus in the tomb before the Sabbath before the Passover meal covenant before sundown Friday!

John 19:23
When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.
dybmh These are the clothes of a high Priest!

dybmh · May 21, 2021

Dogknox20 said:
.
dybmh Thank you for your post... Good question but you are off by a little!
Please be patient..* First point: Between the third cup the “cup of blessing.” and the fourth cup at the Passover meal they sing a song.. the “Great Hallel” (Psalms 114-118) and then they drink the (4) fourth cup of wine to finish the Passover meal.
Mark 14:24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
NOTE.. we read in: Mark 14:26 “And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives”.
dybmh They drank the third cup the cup of blessing but not the (4) forth cup! LOOK what happens at the Mount of Olives? (below)

Mark 14: 35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

dybmh Jesus is doing the will of God not his own will! (above verse) Did you see the mention of "The Cup"? This cup can only be the (4) forth cup the Passover meal is not yet finished! LOOK..

*Second point.. On the way to his crucifixion.. 23 Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it.

You would think a person losing so much blood would have been thirsty!? Jesus does not drink!

John 19:28 Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.”
29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips.
30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

The “It is finished.” means; the Passover meal is FINISHED, the (4) Forth Cup of wine has now been drank! ! Jesus is the new Lamb for the Passover meal all that remains is the the Lamb must be eaten! Note the Hyssop..
Exodus 12:22
Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and on both sides of the doorframe. None of you shall go out of the door of your house until morning.

The Passover Lamb must be unblemished, no broken bones!..
John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

Exodus 12:46
“It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.

dybmh The Passover meal was prepared the day before Sabbath! The New Passover Lamb was slaughtered before the Sabbath he died Friday buried before the Sabbath.
40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.
41 At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid.
42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

They put Jesus in the tomb before the Sabbath before the Passover meal covenant before sundown Friday!

John 19:23
When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.
dybmh These are the clothes of a high Priest!

Can we agree to these 3 points?

1) The pascal lamb cannot be left over to the following day. Exodus 12:10

2) There is an eternal edict protecting Jews from the Angel of Death if they participate in the pascal lamb sacrifice on Passover eve. Exodus 12:42

3) Using the book of Mark instead of the book of John: The Passover ritual occured in Mark 14. Jesus is delivered to Pilates in chapter 15. The chapter begins "Early in the morning" "Καὶ εὐθὺς πρωῒ". Jesus, therefore, was not completely consumed on Passover Eve.

Dogknox20 · May 21, 2021

dybmh said:
Can we agree to these 3 points?

1) The pascal lamb cannot be left over to the following day. Exodus 12:10

2) There is an eternal edict protecting Jews from the Angel of Death if they participate in the pascal lamb sacrifice on Passover eve. Exodus 12:42

3) Using the book of Mark instead of the book of John: The Passover ritual occurred in Mark 14. Jesus is delivered to Pilates in chapter 15. The chapter begins "Early in the morning" "Καὶ εὐθὺς πρωῒ". Jesus, therefore, was not completely consumed on Passover Eve.

.
Thank you for your post & I hope all is well.. Stinking Chinees Flu! :-(
1) Right you are... The Passover Lamb cannot be left it has to be eaten! It is now part of a new Covenant to be eaten to have ETERNAL LIFE!
Luke 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

The “blood of the covenant” that Moses sprinkled on the people to make official the Mosaic Covenant on Mount Sinai.. Jesus now made it NEW in his blood; All sacrifices offered for sins must be bloody sacrifices!

dybmh The Passover meal is being eaten by us until we enter our promised land: "Heaven"! THINK: The People of Moses ate the Manna until they entered their promised land!
The Meal was started/prepared on Thursday the Passover Lamb was slaughtered before the Passover Sabbath now all we must do is eat it!
dybmh you forget: Our Passover Lamb is ALIVE! We eat the flesh of God! God is in us (I consume his living forever Flesh & Blood) God took the form of a man to die as a Man & he now today takes the form of Manna to nourish us on our journey to our Promised Land.. Heaven!

LOOK... John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

dybmh All between verse #45 and verse #59 is the teaching of God!
I underlined some key points (above)!

2) Yes an eternal edict protecting Jews in eating the pascal Lamb! They had to remember it annually! QUESTION: Did they do it? Answer is NO! Many times they rejected God they went to pagan gods.

3) Again to your statement (above) the Lamb was slaughtered; prepared for Passover! The Passover meal was not completed until the forth cup was drank, Jesus drank WINE to complete the meal upon the cross! Jesus drank then proclaimed "It is finished"! The Meal has been prepared the Lamb has been slain, now to be protected from the Angel of Death is EAT the sacrifice!

John D. Brey · May 23, 2021

Brickjectivity said:
I say that blood is the commonality between all the people in a gathering and all kosher animals. They all have this red juice inside, and it is not for eating. They may drink the blood of grapes, the blood of apples, the blood of citrons but not this blood. They don't drink it, not from any animal. This suggests that all share a common source of life, just as all breath the same air. They may get this from that one scripture that says the life is in the blood, but I don't know. Point is, the blood is shared just as we all share the air. Maybe souls can be shared.

In the thread on Isaiah 52:14, you asked a question that's at the heart and soul of this thread. So I hope you don't mind me taking a stab at it in this thread. I'm speaking of your question (message #14 in noted thread) about whether or not there could be more than one messiah? E.g., can't Israel be a national messianic people? Or, isn't the Church, i.e., the body of Christ, a sort of communal messiah?

Part and parcel of kashering Jesus so Judaism can, or should, swallow him, requires that a Jewish god-fearer see why he should have any inclination whatsoever to swallow Jesus as messiah?

In a thread four or five years ago, Every Rabbi is Jesus, I addressed the fact that in Judaism, every rabbi, if not every Jew, is, by Jewish thought, an analogue of what Jesus of Nazareth represents singularly in Christian thought, i.e., a singular, unique, conduit between God and man, who is himself that conduit without outside mediation such as he presents himself (as the singular mediator) to all other human beings. If every Jew can be a conduit between God and man, without that Jew himself requiring a go-between between him and God (i.e., outside mediation), then Jesus is theosophically pointless for the Jew since being a Jew, Jewish-being-ness, is, in itself, what Jesus is thought to be in Christianity.

It was this very question, or principle (is a singular conduit required to establish a relationship between the God of monotheism and man) that led to the thread on Isaiah 52:14, since numerous exegetes, Jewish and Christian, point out that that verse implies that the servant of God in the cross hairs of the verse was perceived in a way that set him apart from all other men at all other times. It's this singular vision of a messianic mediator that I was examining when I realized that the word interpreted "marred," as in "marred" more than any other man, or the sons of men, is the construct form of the word for "messiah" משחת. Which is to say that that verse implies that the person in the cross hairs is a singularly unique individual (different from all men, and all the sons of men). This thread rests on whether that is necessarily true, and whether it's necessary?

Is Jesus required? Why can't every Jew be precisely what Jesus is perceived to be in Christian circles: a singular conduit ---without mediation ---- who mediates between God and man? Why would a Jew need Jesus if he is himself a conduit between God and man without mediation? And why would a Christian need Jesus if he has the Jewish people to perform, nationally, communally, what he, the Christian, thinks requires Jesus personally and singularly?

John

Brickjectivity · May 23, 2021

John D. Brey said:
In the thread on Isaiah 52:14, you asked a question that's at the heart and soul of this thread. So I hope you don't mind me taking a stab at it in this thread. I'm speaking of your question (message #14 in noted thread) about whether or not there could be more than one messiah? E.g., can't Israel be a national messianic people? Or, isn't the Church, i.e., the body of Christ, a sort of communal messiah?

You have said that you cannot ignore dogma when I put forward an interpretation that went around dogma. You said "I don't ignore dogma" or something to that effect. Jesus as an egregore was never a possible answer for you.

John D. Brey said:
Part and parcel of kashering Jesus so Judaism can, or should, swallow him, requires that a Jewish god-fearer see why he should have any inclination whatsoever to swallow Jesus as messiah?

For the time being I do not think its possible, within the dogmatic scope. Jesus must accomplish everything the messiah is expected to accomplish, and then Judaism can accept him. It cannot be forced through contrived arguments. So I think. For the time being Christians must accept that Jews aren't going to see Jesus as relevant to their goals and looks at the Jews as fellow workers doing things in a different way or perhaps competitors in well doing.

John D. Brey said:
In a thread four or five years ago, Every Rabbi is Jesus, I addressed the fact that in Judaism, every rabbi, if not every Jew, is, by Jewish thought, an analogue of what Jesus of Nazareth represents singularly in Christian thought, i.e., a singular, unique, conduit between God and man, who is himself that conduit without outside mediation such as he presents himself to all other human beings. If every Jew can be a conduit between God and man, without that Jew himself requiring a go-between between him and God (i.e., outside mediation), then Jesus is theosophically pointless for the Jew since being a Jew, Jewish-being-ness, is, in itself, what Jesus is thought to be in Christianity.

The only Christian scripture I know of which mentions Jesus as a priest is Hebrews. The idea of a conduit is something you have to support. Sacrifices are not required for forgiveness from God, and death is required for perfection. One could argue that death is the conduit if any. The role of a priest is to teach and to resolve disputes, so priests do not seem to me like conduits to God any more than parents do.

John D. Brey said:
It was this very question, or principle (is a singular conduit required to establish a relationship between the God of monotheism and man) that led to the thread on Isaiah 52:14, since numerous exegetes, Jewish and Christian, pointed out that that verse implies that the servant of God in the cross hairs of the verse was perceived in a way that set him apart from all other men at all other times. It's this singular vision of a messianic mediator that I was examining when I realized that the word interpreted "marred," as in "marred" more than any other man, or the sons of men, is the construct form of the word for "messiah" משחת. Which is to say that that verse implies that the person in the cross hairs is a singularly unique individual. This thread rests on whether that is necessarily true, and whether it's necessary?

Yes, but Israel is a singular group of people who have been as a group more oppressed, more times, more disfigured. More than half of the tribes are gone. This could be what the prophet is talking about, so it doesn't force the issue of a single person. I consider how Jeremiah says the LORD talks about Ephraim as 'My dear son' (Jer 31:20), but he's an entire state of people not one person.

John D. Brey said:
Is Jesus required? Why can't every Jew be precisely what Jesus is perceived to be in Christian circles: a singular conduit ---without mediation ---- who mediates between God and man? Why would a Jew need Jesus if he is himself a conduit between God and man without mediation?

Jesus says the Jews should embrace his message, but he doesn't say they need his death. The atonement of his death is for the gentiles. That is my understanding.

Dogknox20 · May 23, 2021

Brickjectivity said:
You have said that you cannot ignore dogma when I put forward an interpretation that went around dogma. You said "I don't ignore dogma" or something to that effect. Jesus as an egregore was never a possible answer for you.

For the time being I do not think its possible, within the dogmatic scope. Jesus must accomplish everything the messiah is expected to accomplish, and then Judaism can accept him. It cannot be forced through contrived arguments. So I think. For the time being Christians must accept that Jews aren't going to see Jesus as relevant to their goals and looks at the Jews as fellow workers doing things in a different way or perhaps competitors in well doing.

The only Christian scripture I know of which mentions Jesus as a priest is Hebrews. The idea of a conduit is something you have to support. Sacrifices are not required for forgiveness from God, and death is required for perfection. One could argue that death is the conduit if any. The role of a priest is to teach and to resolve disputes, so priests do not seem to me like conduits to God any more than parents do.

Yes, but Israel is a singular group of people who have been as a group more oppressed, more times, more disfigured. More than half of the tribes are gone. This could be what the prophet is talking about, so it doesn't force the issue of a single person. I consider how Jeremiah says the LORD talks about Ephraim as 'My dear son' (Jer 31:20), but he's an entire state of people not one person.

Jesus says the Jews should embrace his message, but he doesn't say they need his death. The atonement of his death is for the gentiles. That is my understanding.

Brickjectivity I point out... Priests are the hands of Jesus! Priests need a sacrifice to offer! Jesus is a High Priest in Heaven! Jesus is offering to God his holy perfect sacrifice for us; in our place!
The high-priest alone might enter the Holy of Holies on the day of atonement, and even he but once a year, to sprinkle the blood of the sin-offering and offer incense: he prayed and sacrificed for himself as well as for the people. Zacharias the father of John the Baptist was a High Priest!

Hebrews 9:12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.
13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.
14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
&
24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.

John D. Brey · May 23, 2021

Brickjectivity said:
You have said that you cannot ignore dogma when I put forward an interpretation that went around dogma.

My implication was that people without a dogmatic anchor to their epistemology are like a dandelion seed floating around on any current.

You said "I don't ignore dogma" or something to that effect. Jesus as an egregore was never a possible answer for you.

Anything is possible for me. But the possibilities that exist outside of my dogmatic epistemological orientation must be able to convert my current dogma to something different. That's possible, but since I take dogma as serious as a heart attack, the person who will convert me is probably going to trust his dogma, presumably for good reasons, more than I trust mine.

Jesus must accomplish everything the messiah is expected to accomplish, and then Judaism can accept him. It cannot be forced through contrived arguments. So I think. For the time being Christians must accept that Jews aren't going to see Jesus as relevant to their goals and looks at the Jews as fellow workers doing things in a different way or perhaps competitors in well doing.

Amen. And yet there are fundamental distinctions between Judaism and Christianity that I assume are able to be brought into unity within the proper context. It's that context that I'm striving to perceive.

The only Christian scripture I know of which mentions Jesus as a priest is Hebrews. The idea of a conduit is something you have to support. . . The role of a priest is to teach and to resolve disputes, so priests do not seem to me like conduits to God any more than parents do.

Etymologically, and anthropologically, a "priest" is a god-man whose father practiced jus primae noctis. The "priest" is a mediator for the rest of his family because unlike the rest of the children born to the mother, the firstborn is sired by the clan god.

Judaism acknowledged this truism at one time. The firstborn belonged to God and entered the temple where he was conceived. Even today, in the ritual of pidyon ha'ben, the family symbolically purchases god's son, the firstborn, out of the priesthood so that he can remain part of the Jewish family.

Yes, but Israel is a singular group of people who have been as a group more oppressed, more times, more disfigured. More than half of the tribes are gone. This could be what the prophet is talking about, so it doesn't force the issue of a single person. I consider how Jeremiah says the LORD talks about Ephraim as 'My dear son' (Jer 31:20), but he's an entire state of people not one person.

Imo, Israel is no doubt a messianic people. And I naturally agree with what you said. So the question that concerns me is whether a singular person, a true man conceived jus primae noctis (with no human father), as the true firstborn of humanity (Colossians 1:16) is a necessary element required to unify Judaism and Christian thought?

Jesus says the Jews should embrace his message, but he doesn't say they need his death. The atonement of his death is for the gentiles. That is my understanding.

If Judaism's image of itself is correct, and it may be, then your statement could be correct. But if Jesus is a singular phenomenon in so broad a context that his nature and person subsumes all humanity for all time, past, present, and future, then Jews are only emblems of a principle that requires Jesus of Nazareth.

It's that last statement that I take to be very probable and which I'm trying to understand better.

John

Brickjectivity · May 23, 2021

Dogknox20 said:
Brickjectivity I point out... Priests are the hands of Jesus! Priests need a sacrifice to offer! Jesus is a High Priest in Heaven! Jesus is offering to God his holy perfect sacrifice for us; in our place!
The high-priest alone might enter the Holy of Holies on the day of atonement, and even he but once a year, to sprinkle the blood of the sin-offering and offer incense: he prayed and sacrificed for himself as well as for the people. Zacharias the father of John the Baptist was a High Priest!

The Jews are promised (Exodus 19:6) that eventually they will be a kingdom of priests. How could that be if the main purpose of a priest were to sprinkle blood? Melchizedek is a priest from Genesis 14:18 and is king of the city called Peace, and he does not make a sacrifice. He brings out bread and wine to share with Abraham. Nowhere in scripture does it say Melchizedek sacrifices any animal or eats any meat. Does he? Maybe, but its not important enough to mention. They go out of their way to mention the bread and wine though.

I think we disagree about what priests are in Judaism. Jews can live just fine without priests sacrificing So can Protestants. The things you refer to such as using blood, entering the holy of holies, etc. the Jews are fine without. They been without a temple for thousands of years. So have Christians, and if there were a temple we would visit at least in the outer courts. It isn't merely a place for sacrifices and blood. It is a gathering place and a place to talk about peace and to make peace with neighbors. The priest's core duties it seems are:

to maintain peace,
settle disputes,
to teach,
to distribute the community taxes compassionately, liberally, responsibly,
to preside over the community feasts,
to maintain order and solemnity during sacrifices,
to remind all of why they are there.
other

Now the Catholics.

What of Catholic priests? Do they offer sacrifices of meat? No, because they say that Jesus body is the sacrifice. So that is yet another case where priests (this time not Jewish priests) do not offer meat, and their main purpose isn't killing or sprinkling blood. So then what do you think they spend their time doing if they have nothing to kill? Do they twiddle their thumbs all day? The point is upheld that priests have a lot more to do than sprinkle blood, and they may not even do that.

@John D. Brey
Mr. Brey mentions that in Archeology a priest is from a family line and a "god-man whose father practiced jus primae noctis". That's probably true for Etruscans, Romans and some others; but its not Jewish. Catholic priests may not be anything like Roman ones except in name. The similar word doesn't necessarily make them the same thing when talking about such different cultures. Jews tend to take words, stories and other items from other cultures and use them to say something entirely different. The story of Gilgamesh vs. the story of Noah is a prime example of a story that praises warrior strength turned into a story warning against violence. The priest takes the one thing, the violent and destructive thing like a sword, and the priest hammers it into a plow. What's a soldier to do if he can't buy a sword, but he can buy a plow? He may become a farmer, and the priest's work is done; and the Jewish story is so far different from the similar story. The Jewish priest is not a Roman priest. Is a Jewish potato the same as a Roman potato? Yes, but potatoes are not like priests, though they may look the same.

Brickjectivity · May 23, 2021

John D. Brey said:
My implication was that people without a dogmatic anchor to their epistemology are like a dandelion seed floating around on any current.

Love and family are anchors. A background with loving parents is very freeing. Concern for others can break through misunderstandings. Truth follows after love, not the reverse. Truth without love is without context, but love is a context on its own. I agree that the details of how to show love aren't as simple as loving people, but I'm only saying that even if we had no teaching, no doctrines, we could still do well. A person can.

John D. Brey said:
Anything is possible for me. But the possibilities that exist outside of my dogmatic epistemological orientation must be able to convert my current dogma to something different. That's possible, but since I take dogma as serious as a heart attack, the person who will convert me is probably going to trust his dogma, presumably for good reasons, more than I trust mine.

I also am very strict about what scriptures actually say and not to pretend they say what they do not, however the writers don't always follow the same rules as I. They assume that I am a thinking man and appreciate figures of speech and will be skeptical, checking things. When I check things I often find they aren't what they seem, and this is as the writers intend.

John D. Brey said:
Amen. And yet there are fundamental distinctions between Judaism and Christianity that I assume are able to be brought into unity within the proper context. It's that context that I'm striving to perceive.

Ok, but Jews aren't going to accept Christianity as it is practiced today. They originally viewed Christianity as a possibility and let it be for about two centuries, but then they ruled against it, kicked it out of the synagogues. The messianic congregations are a spectrum, too. What is a messianic? It depends who you ask.

John D. Brey said:
Etymologically, and anthropologically, a "priest" is a god-man whose father practiced jus primae noctis. The "priest" is a mediator for the rest of his family because unlike the rest of the children born to the mother, the firstborn is sired by the clan god.

Judaism acknowledged this truism at one time. The firstborn belonged to God and entered the temple where he was conceived. Even today, in the ritual of pidyon ha'ben, the family symbolically purchases god's son, the firstborn, out of the priesthood so that he can remain part of the Jewish family.

The Egyptians practiced it, but the Jews rejected and changed everything Egyptian into something else. They would also have changed this 'jus primae noctis' you mention, too. It would have either a different purpose or form or something. In the story of the plagues all of the Egyptian firstborn are killed, I guess the means they are left with no priests. Israel however has firstborn, but in the book of Numbers it says they are redeemed from priesthood and not put to work as priests. Instead the priests will come from one of the tribes, unlike the Egyptians.

John D. Brey said:
Imo, Israel is no doubt a messianic people. And I naturally agree with what you said. So the question that concerns me is whether a singular person, a true man conceived jus primae noctis (with no human father), as the true firstborn of humanity (Colossians 1:16) is a necessary element required to unify Judaism and Christian thought?

I'd rather not answer that, but I point out that after the fall of the temple and complete betrayal of Rome the Jews had to make a choice between healing and vengeance. Is there anything written about that? I think there is not unless we count the gospels.

John D. Brey said:
If Judaism's image of itself is correct, and it may be, then your statement could be correct. But if Jesus is a singular phenomenon in so broad a context that his nature and person subsumes all humanity for all time, past, present, and future, then Jews are only emblems of a principle that requires Jesus of Nazareth.

It's that last statement that I take to be very probable and which I'm trying to understand better.

John

Always the hard questions. Love hopes all things, believes all things, endures all things. How? I do not know.

John D. Brey · May 23, 2021

Brickjectivity said:
@John D. Brey
Mr. Brey mentions that in Archeology a priest is from a family line and a "god-man whose father practiced jus primae noctis". That's probably true for Etruscans, Romans and some others; but its not Jewish. Catholic priests may not be anything like Roman ones except in name. The similar word doesn't necessarily make them the same thing when talking about such different cultures.

As was discussed in the thread on Notre ADam[e], the first human was created from the ground as a feminine entity and the first masculine element, the breath of God, was breathed into her making her pregnant from the moment of her creation.

This is the original jus primae noctis that the entire Jewish system of theology is based on.

And yet the Masoretic text covers this fundamental foundation up for some reason that is part and parcel of the tragedy of human civilization as it's come to exist after Genesis 2:21, where the basis for Masoretic trans-gendering of the holy text finds its foundation precisely when ha-adam's labial flesh is sutured shut סגר to form the first false step of human history: the phallus.

The acceptance of the Phallus is immoral. It has always been thought of as hateful; it has been the image of Satan, and Dante made it the central pillar of hell.

Weininger, Sex and Character.

By draining pagan symbols of their life-blood (their meaning) a Jew doesn't know what it means to drain the phallus of its life-blood: brit milah.

Knowing that, would be a small step for theology of a Christian kind, but a giant step for the Judaism kind. Which is to say that the commandment to kasher pagan symbols required God either to give Jews Jewish symbols made wholesale rather than from the whole-cloth of the pagans, or else to secretly tell them what the pagan symbols actually hide from the pagans.

The latter is surely the case since my whole case rests on my ability to use a sort of blockchain theological technology to cut not just the foreskin, but to cut right to the chase of what its blood signifies.

Judaism would have beat me to the punch except for the Baffling Bloody Ban that banned them consuming the blood of their symbols so that it could be metabolized rather than idolized and made into a new falsehood the moment the original false hood was removed in the founding ritual.

The Hebrews had for idols, not metal or wood, but a race, a nation, something just as worldly. Their religion is in essence inseparable from such idolatry, because of their notion of the "elect (chosen) people."

Simone Weil, quoted in Elliot R. Wolfson's, Giving Beyond the Gift.

John

Dogknox20 · May 23, 2021

Brickjectivity said:
The Jews are promised (Exodus 19:6) that eventually they will be a kingdom of priests. How could that be if the main purpose of a priest were to sprinkle blood? Melchizedek is a priest from Genesis 14:18 and is king of the city called Peace, and he does not make a sacrifice. He brings out bread and wine to share with Abraham. Nowhere in scripture does it say Melchizedek sacrifices any animal or eats any meat. Does he? Maybe, but its not important enough to mention. They go out of their way to mention the bread and wine though.

I think we disagree about what priests are in Judaism. Jews can live just fine without priests sacrificing So can Protestants. The things you refer to such as using blood, entering the holy of holies, etc. the Jews are fine without. They been without a temple for thousands of years. So have Christians, and if there were a temple we would visit at least in the outer courts. It isn't merely a place for sacrifices and blood. It is a gathering place and a place to talk about peace and to make peace with neighbors. The priest's core duties it seems are:

to maintain peace,

settle disputes,

to teach,

to distribute the community taxes compassionately, liberally, responsibly,

to preside over the community feasts,

to maintain order and solemnity during sacrifices,

to remind all of why they are there.

other

Now the Catholics.

What of Catholic priests? Do they offer sacrifices of meat? No, because they say that Jesus body is the sacrifice. So that is yet another case where priests (this time not Jewish priests) do not offer meat, and their main purpose isn't killing or sprinkling blood. So then what do you think they spend their time doing if they have nothing to kill? Do they twiddle their thumbs all day? The point is upheld that priests have a lot more to do than sprinkle blood, and they may not even do that.

@John D. Brey
Mr. Brey mentions that in Archeology a priest is from a family line and a "god-man whose father practiced jus primae noctis". That's probably true for Etruscans, Romans and some others; but its not Jewish. Catholic priests may not be anything like Roman ones except in name. The similar word doesn't necessarily make them the same thing when talking about such different cultures. Jews tend to take words, stories and other items from other cultures and use them to say something entirely different. The story of Gilgamesh vs. the story of Noah is a prime example of a story that praises warrior strength turned into a story warning against violence. The priest takes the one thing, the violent and destructive thing like a sword, and the priest hammers it into a plow. What's a soldier to do if he can't buy a sword, but he can buy a plow? He may become a farmer, and the priest's work is done; and the Jewish story is so far different from the similar story. The Jewish priest is not a Roman priest. Is a Jewish potato the same as a Roman potato? Yes, but potatoes are not like priests, though they may look the same.

.
Brickjectivity you are mixed up.. "All SIN offerings/Sacrifice have to be bloody!" Yes Melchizedek is a priest his offering was not for sin!
The priest's core duties are: To offer sacrifice! All priest need a sacrifice to offer it is their duty!
You ask: What of Catholic priests? Do they offer sacrifices of meat? Answer is: The Priest at the alter offers up to God Jesus the PERFECT Sacrifice, a Sacrifice we KNOW God accepts!
The Priest is the Hands of Jesus at the Alter he offers up to God and at the Alter he receives Gods Blessings for us! "Jesus is the "Go-Between" for man!
In the Confessional box, I see the Priest I hear the Priest BUT...
Brickjectivity but it is Jesus working through his priest that removes my sins!

Brickjectivity The Priest offers to God at the Alter the "Flesh of Jesus in the form of manna/Bread!" The Flesh of Jesus is real food!
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
&
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
&
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Brickjectivity · May 23, 2021

Dogknox20 said:
Brickjectivity you are mixed up.. "All SIN offerings/Sacrifice have to be bloody!" Yes Melchizedek is a priest his offering was not for sin!
The priest's core duties are: To offer sacrifice! All priest need a sacrifice to offer it is their duty!

Don't make assertions you can't support. Your leaps of judgement don't amount to argument.

Dogknox20 said:
You ask: What of Catholic priests? Do they offer sacrifices of meat? Answer is: The Priest at the alter offers up to God Jesus the PERFECT Sacrifice, a Sacrifice we KNOW God accepts!

More assertions.

Dogknox20 said:
Brickjectivity but it is Jesus working through his priest that removes my sins!

Did not say anything. You made this up. We're done talking.

Brickjectivity · May 23, 2021

John D. Brey said:
As was discussed in the thread on Notre ADam[e], the first human was created from the ground as a feminine entity and the first masculine element, the breath of God, was breathed into her making her pregnant from the moment of her creation.

This is the original jus primae noctis that the entire Jewish system of theology is based on.

And yet the Masoretic text covers this fundamental foundation up for some reason that is part and parcel of the tragedy of human civilization as it's come to exist after Genesis 2:21, where the basis for Masoretic trans-gendering of the holy text finds its foundation precisely when ha-adam's labial flesh is sutured shut סגר to form the first false step of human history: the phallus.

The acceptance of the Phallus is immoral. It has always been thought of as hateful; it has been the image of Satan, and Dante made it the central pillar of hell.

Weininger, Sex and Character.

By draining pagan symbols of their life-blood (their meaning) a Jew doesn't know what it means to drain the phallus of its life-blood: brit milah.

Knowing that, would be a small step for theology of a Christian kind, but a giant step for the Judaism kind. Which is to say that the commandment to kasher pagan symbols required God either to give Jews Jewish symbols made wholesale rather than from the whole-cloth of the pagans, or else to secretly tell them what the pagan symbols actually hide from the pagans.

The latter is surely the case since my whole case rests on my ability to use a sort of blockchain theological technology to cut not just the foreskin, but to cut right to the chase of what its blood signifies.

Judaism would have beat me to the punch except for the Baffling Bloody Ban that banned them consuming the blood of their symbols so that it could be metabolized rather than idolized and made into a new falsehood the moment the original false hood was removed in the founding ritual.

The Hebrews had for idols, not metal or wood, but a race, a nation, something just as worldly. Their religion is in essence inseparable from such idolatry, because of their notion of the "elect (chosen) people."

Simone Weil, quoted in Elliot R. Wolfson's, Giving Beyond the Gift.

John

I can't say I agree with that. Penises far from considered hateful are a symbol of war and masculine strength and always have been in most places except Israel. Judaism departed from this opposing war and opposing the idea that might was right and did so both in story and symbol.

Dogknox20 · May 23, 2021

Brickjectivity said:
Don't make assertions you can't support. Your leaps of judgement don't amount to argument.

More assertions.

Did not say anything. You made this up. We're done talking.

1) All SIN offerings/Sacrifice have to be bloody!"
2) The Priest at the alter offers up to God Jesus the PERFECT Sacrifice,
3) Jesus working through his priest that removes my sins!

1) Priests need a sacrifice... Old and New testaments the Priest offers to God for the people! The PRIEST does the actions for the people: Blood is poured out for sins!
Leviticus 4:7 The priest shall then put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense that is before the Lord in the tent of meeting. The rest of the bull’s blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the tent of meeting.

Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Leviticus 9:8 So Aaron came to the altar and slaughtered the calf as a sin offering for himself.

2)
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Brickjectivity The Priest offers on the alter exactly what Jesus told them to do ..."DO THIS" he said to the Apostles.. Bishops/Priests.... This is my body given for you & “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you

Brickjectivity 3) Jesus working through his priest removes my sins!
John 20:21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”
22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has AUTHORITY given to her directly from Jesus; in person..! Authority from God to remove or retain sins, to Make Disciples & to TEACH all nations!

Kashering Christianity So A Jew Can Swallow It.

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש

wind and rain touch not this brain

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש

Well-Known Member

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

wind and rain touch not this brain

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

wind and rain touch not this brain

wind and rain touch not this brain

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

wind and rain touch not this brain

wind and rain touch not this brain

Well-Known Member