Basically for Jews

[dybmh]

And Abraham knew that

Wow. Now you're claiming to be psychic and can reach back several 1000s of years...

And Abraham knew that the "r" (Hebrew reish which means "rosh," i.e., "firstborn") that God put in his name, represents the "rosh" or firstborn. So Abraham assumed, with good cause, that since Isaac was the first person born after he mutilated the organ that passes on death through sex, naturally Isaac would be the first person born in the line of Adam (post-lapsed mankind), who shouldn't be subject to the death-sentence passed on through what the pen-is that writes the poison of testosterone into the womb to contaminate the firstborn like the father was contaminated. That pen-is the original poison pen so to say.

At least you're not name dropping a legit Rabbi trying to piggy back off their credibiltiy this time. I thank you for that.

It's still a baseless theory trying to project your own desired outcome with zero scriptural support.

Anyway, it eats at Abraham that Isaac shouldn't be subject to death any longer since he's the firstborn of the covenant God gave prior to the death sentence found in Genesis. Abraham finally can't take the suspense any longer. He loads wood on Isaac's back and hikes him up a hill to prove to all the world that he believes in the nature of the covenant renewed through him when he mutilated the organ that began raising Cain with humanity in the first place.

Um. No. Everyone knows that God commanded Abraham to bind Isaac to the altar. It wasn't as you are saying:

"Abraham finally can't take the suspense any longer. He loads wood on Isaac's back and hikes him up a hill to prove to all the world that he believes in the nature of the covenant renewed through him when he mutilated the organ that began raising Cain with humanity in the first place."

So, now you're literally writing your own bible. Like actually rewriting the story. Wow. Here's what is actually written.

22:1​

And it came to pass after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham; and he said, Behold, here I am.​

​

22:2​

And he said, Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell you.​

God tested Abraham. Abraham was not exhausted from the suspense and makes a choice to prove anything to the world about his penis, as you are saying.

So why did the angel of the Lord stop Abraham?

Because it was a test. See verse 1.

That's the question I find most interesting in all the back and forth going on in this thread. And it's why I gave dybmh a trophy for one of his messages in this thread where he comes dangerously close to answering that question.

Hopefully you will take to heart that what I said about lying deception and fraud.

 

[dybmh]

Were אב meant to be taken literally, in the physical sense, the form of the name would be "אבהם" and the ר would be meaningless and disruptive​

​

. . .​

​

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

BUZZZZZZZZZ. Lies deception and fraud. The elipsis. You have spliced together two parts of the Rabbis commentary and are trying to pretend that they are one unit.

I know the games you play. I know how you try to craft an illusion. Lying by omission. Slicing and dicing and taking things out of context.

Shame on you.

The first sentence comes from the commentary on Gen 17 verse 5 which describes the "R" in Abraham's name. The second sentence comes from Collected writings 3. Which is referenced about verses 12-13 which have NOTHING to do with the "R" in Abraham's name.

But with a little slight of hand and a negligence of respect for the author, no problem, right? Here's the actual quotation about the "octave of birth".

Please note: it has NOTHING to do with Abraham. Nothing to do with the R in his name. And, there's an elipsis in there too. But at least we have the page numbers. I've just ordered the collected writings. It'll be here in about a week.

Seven signifies completion and conclusion. The "eighth" represents a new beginning, but on a higher, clearer, plane. The state of טומאה [being unclean] is concluded with the seventh day, and the eighth day then is a new beginning, but on a more refined level. The state of evolving טהרה [purity] reaches its completion with the seventh day, and the eighth day provides another beginning . . . Therefore, the physical birth of the child is completed on the seventh day. The eighth day, 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.

Collected Writings III, p. 110-111.

It seems patently clear, at least in the statements Rabbi Hirsch makes above (bracket and underlining mine) that Rabbi Hirsch is claiming the R in Ab-R-aham isn't intended to be taken as a "rosh" or "firstborn" (the Hebrew R, or reish, means the "head" or "first" or "firstborn") in a physical sense, you know like the birth of Isaac, but symbolizes the R, or reish, in the swollen belly of the "covenant" ב–ר–ית

Nope. That is you splicing together two commentaries from two different verses, where the signficance is about the child being circumcised not Abraham. The Rabbi absolutely is NOT saying anything about the R in ב–ר–ית.

You're being deceptive and sneaky.

The actual quote is:

What is the meaning of this latter phrase? To maintain that it refers to Avraham's physical descendants is difficult, for they are mentioned only in verse 6. The name "Avraham" also shows that, here, the phrase is not to be taken in the physical sense. Were "Av" meant to be taken literally, in the physical sense, the form of the name would be "Avhem/Avham", and the "R" would be meaningless and disruptive.​

Rather, "Av-Hamohn Goyim" ( Father of a multiude of nations, Gen 17:5 ) is equivalent to "Aihver-Hamohn Goyim". "Aihver", "wing," symbolizes the power to take wing and soar,​

And then 7 verses later, the Rabbi writes:

​

Elsewhere ( Collected Writings vol. 3 ) we tried to give a detailed explanation of the mitzvah of milah and its meaning. we also analyzed there the special mitzvah of circumcising the child on the eighth day ( and in certain cases, immediately on the first day ). The reader is referred there.​

And in that quote it also says NOTHING about the R being in the ב–ר–ית.

which is the house ב–ית of the R (or reish) ית-R–ב (berit as the house of the reish, house of the true firstborn whom Cain usurped), but instead speaks of some kind of spiritual firstborn who will be born late, no doubt (Cain's birth was part and parcel of the temporary abortion), but who though still-born, is still born, alive mind you, and from a conception and birth that utterly mutilates the natural, physical, requirement, that requires an unmutilated, intact, phallus, father a physical firstborn.

Blah-blah-blah. This is bovine excrement being flung at a wall. None of it is welcome, none of it sticks. And none of it is coming from Rabbi Hirsch.

 

[John D. Brey]

No, I didn't omit the Rabbi saying circumcision is only a benefit if you fufill the law. The Rabbi doesn't say that, and the quote you posted doesn't say that either. "Benefit" doesn't exist anywhere in the commentary on Genesis 17. In fact, the Rabbi says the opposite. If there was a benefit, a reward, that would be a rational reason for being Jewish. And the whole point of the commentary page after page after page in Gen 17 is that being Jewish is supra-rational; it's going beyond the rational reasons.

You see, in orthodox Judaism, a commandent is done L'Shaim Shamayim, for the sake of heaven. The reward for the mitzvah IS the mitzvah.

You pointed out that Rabbi Hirsch says:

It is striking that in our verse the מילה [milah] itself is called ברית [brit] implying that the very act of circumcision constitutes fulfillment of the covenant. In the next verse, however, מילה [milah] is called אות ברית [sign brit] a sign of the covenant, implying that the fulfillment of the covenant entails more than the act of circumcision. All this is said here at the first mitzvah unique to Israel, a mitzvah whose essential character is symbolic, and this can serve as a key to understanding two dimension of all similar mitzvos.​

​

Rabbi Samson Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash.​

Rabbi Hirsch says the act constitutes fulfillment. But that's asinine and he knows it. Removing a piece flesh from the penis changes a person's spiritual constitution? No way AJay. ----So knowing he has a problem on his hands, he follows up with this:

In symbolic mitzvos we are commanded by God not only to be mindful of the idea that is symbolized, but also, and indeed primarily, to perform the mitzvah act. Recollection of the idea can never substitute for the performance of the act. Failure to perform the act is tantamount to denying the idea. He who fails to make the sign of the covenant breaks the covenant itself (v. 14); the making of the sign itself is called keeping the covenant (v. 10).

 . . On the other hand, the performance of the act accomplishes its full purpose only if it becomes a "sign," a "symbol"; only if it is taken to heart as a symbol, and if the idea symbolized by the act comes alive within us.​

He hedges his bet. Where before he said the very act of circumcision constitutes fulfillment of the covenant, now, he says "the performance of the act accomplishes its full purpose only if it becomes a `sign,' a `symbol." You can't really have it both ways. Either the act is the fulfillment of the covenant, or the act has to be accompanied by understanding the symbolic nature of the act: why that? Why there? Why milah, periah, metzitzah? All three are symbolic acts. All three are signs that signify something the act acts out in a symbolic way.




John

 

[dybmh]

You pointed out that Rabbi Hirsch says:

It is striking that in our verse the מילה [milah] itself is called ברית [brit] implying that the very act of circumcision constitutes fulfillment of the covenant. In the next verse, however, מילה [milah] is called אות ברית [sign brit] a sign of the covenant, implying that the fulfillment of the covenant entails more than the act of circumcision. All this is said here at the first mitzvah unique to Israel, a mitzvah whose essential character is symbolic, and this can serve as a key to understanding two dimension of all similar mitzvos.​

​

Rabbi Samson Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash.​

Rabbi Hirsch says the act constitutes fulfillment. But that's asinine and he knows it. Removing a piece flesh from the penis changes a person's spiritual constitution? No way AJay. ----So knowing he has a problem on his hands, he follows up with this:

In symbolic mitzvos we are commanded by God not only to be mindful of the idea that is symbolized, but also, and indeed primarily, to perform the mitzvah act. Recollection of the idea can never substitute for the performance of the act. Failure to perform the act is tantamount to denying the idea. He who fails to make the sign of the covenant breaks the covenant itself (v. 14); the making of the sign itself is called keeping the covenant (v. 10).

 . . On the other hand, the performance of the act accomplishes its full purpose only if it becomes a "sign," a "symbol"; only if it is taken to heart as a symbol, and if the idea symbolized by the act comes alive within us.​

He hedges his bet. Where before he said the very act of circumcision constitutes fulfillment of the covenant, now, he says "the performance of the act accomplishes its full purpose only if it becomes a `sign,' a `symbol." You can't really have it both ways. Either the act is the fulfillment of the covenant, or the act has to be accompanied by understanding the symbolic nature of the act: why that? Why there? Why milah, periah, metzitzah? All three are symbolic acts. All three are signs that signify something the act acts out in a symbolic way.

No one is asking you to agree with what he has written. Just accurately describe his point of view.

I am somewhat shocked that you do not understand, with all of your research and learning in Jewish mysticsm, ( I'm being kind and sincere ) that you do not acknowledge a change in the material has an effect on the spiritual. I am aware that your focus has been on a specific style of mysticsm coming from well... I'll reserve my comments. But I though at least you had the basics.

And, this notion that you consider yourself capable of reading the Rabbi's mind, is, where I get to say "No way Ajay".

Now, what does this have to do with the FACT that the Rabbi does not even once focus on benefit, and instead is writting against any rational reward for this mitzvah? That was my assertion to which you replied. The problem is, the author whom you call "St. Paul" is concerne with benefit, but the Rabbi is not. So, its virtually impossible to connect these two the Rabbi and "St. Paul" as being somehow in agreement. The one is concerned with the reward, the other is against the reward.

 

[John D. Brey]

Now, what does this have to do with the FACT that the Rabbi does not even once focus on benefit, and instead is writting against any rational reward for this mitzvah? That was my assertion to which you replied. The problem is, the author whom you call "St. Paul" is concerne with benefit, but the Rabbi is not. So, its virtually impossible to connect these two the Rabbi and "St. Paul" as being somehow in agreement. The one is concerned with the reward, the other is against the reward.

Thank you for noticing the aposiopesis in my response. I started to address the issue I quoted you putting forward, but I got frustrated and digressed, going another direction. Since you were kind enough to notice, I'll try to address your original point. It's actually the one I gave you a trophy for bringing up.

There are three kinds of commandments contained in the Torah: mishpatim, eidot and chukim. Chukim ("decrees") are laws which transcend our understanding and which we obey simply because they are the word of G‑d.​

​

Chabad.org, Mitzvot of the Third Kind.​

The nature of the chukkim has been brought up earlier in this thread. Rosends brought up some very interesting points; particularly when he said:

Also I know that the Beit Haleivi explained that the entire torah is a chok but I don't think anyone would apply the title of a formal chok to every mitzvah because of that.

When you point out that nothing Jews do is supposed to be for a rational reason, benefit, or gain, i.e., it must all be done lishmah, in my opinion you're supporting the idea that the entire Torah is a chok, and that Jewish thought itself, must be treated as such. Jewish thought that is lishmah, for the sake of heaven, is, as you imply, supra-rational (there can be no rational motivation toward benefiting be it money, fame, fortune, nor even gaining valuable knowledge). Ergo, Judaism itself is fundamentally, when the Jew is functioning correctly, just like a chok. Jewish identity is a chok, circumcision is a chok, everything Jewish is a chok. And this is the understandable glory of Judaism. Doing things without seeking a reason, or rationale, for why they're done: just trusting God.

In the case of eidot and chukim, which can be derived only from Divine revelation, there would be no possibility of taking disputes to a non-Jewish court which bases its laws on human reason.​

​

Ibid. Chabad.org.​

Right here is the fly in the ointment that I discussed in minute detail in the thread (become essay) Monomeism: the Meontology of Jewish identity. What's pointed out in that thread, that's important to this message, is the fact that to the extent Jewish though is, or is like, a chok, such that it's not generally rational in a manner non-Jews can understand (or more importantly participate in, contribute to), then this kind of Jewish thought creates a pretty glaring problem that was discussed in the thread just noted:

It's easy to respect and appreciate orthodox Jews wanting to be left alone to believe what they want to believe, worship how they want to worship, and live as they want to live. Amen. . . Everyone should be entitled to that: it should be a universal principle. Nevertheless, if Derrida’s principle of a universally inclusive Judaism holds water, then it's a profoundly and fundamentally different thing for Jews to imply that not only do they want to be left alone, to believe as they believe (exclusive of all others), worship as they worship (exclusive of all others), live as they live (nothing wrong here so far), but, further, perhaps too far, that Jews aren't even fully subject to all the universal truths that truly inhere in non-Jewish mankind's reality (i.e., the reality God created for every soul other than the Jewish soul), well, that seems a bit much. . ..​

​

According to the particular Jewish worldview that’s in the cross-hairs in the latter statement, this freedom from the rest of humanity isn’t being posited as simply freedom to think and act according to Jewish dictates, by reason of the natural right of all persons to do as they choose without interference, but is a statement that Jews aren't, in this kind of reasoning, fundamentally, really, metaphysically, identical to the rest of God’s creation.​

​

The Israelites were thus totally sanctified to God, and became virtually a separate species.​

​

Rabbi Kaplan, Handbook of Jewish Thought, p. 54.​

​

This doctrine of hyper-exclusivity is precisely what Freud, living during the Holocaust, intuited, with Wittgenstein, as an almost impossible barrier for those people among whom the Jews were living to accept peaceably. Wittgenstein went so far as to imply that this hyper-exclusivity made it impossible for the nation-state harboring Israel to feel like anything other than the beleaguered host for a parasitical organism so profoundly constituted through ageless and timeless genealogy, as well as Torah study, that in this bizarre syzygy the host was inferior to the parasite such that it, the host, had no alternative but to succumb to its superior as its highest act of religious morality.​

​

Wittgenstein pointed out that this is opposite the natural [rational] instincts of any nation or national body such that in his mind the Holocaust was inevitable so long as Jews interpreted the founding mark in their flesh as a sign of hyper-exclusivity (a crown signifying “chosen-ness” rather than the marking of a violent elimination of the flesh associated with the highborn rights of the firstborn who first came ---Cain ----through that flesh).​

​

In this unique Jewish hyper-exclusive theological construct [Jewish thought as supra-rational], Jews literally have a communal reality (Jews only), which is not just their own subjective conceptualism, or their shared theology, it’s not just theory, or lived practice among Jews, for their own sake (all of which is legitimate), but is believed by many orthodox practitioners to be really, physically, literally, and metaphysically, immune from certain realities (facts & truths [reason and rationality]) which no other human being can jettison like the Jew believes he can; for instance, the universal requirement to obtain a mediator in order to have contact with a wholly other being (even if the mediator can be jettisoned after the mediation is established).​

​

It's one thing to say, for the sake of not wanting to offend, that Jesus Saves is fine for you non-Jews. A knock yourself out (kind of a statement). But it becomes potentially sinister when, and if (only “if” mind you), a Jew really believes that even if Jesus Saves non-Jews, if Jesus is truly the Messiah and God/man for all non-Jews, that reality, even if universally true, (i.e., Jesus is the Savior of all mankind) is meaningless, and doesn’t hold true for the Jew. It's like saying, we share your country, we share your President, we share the physics that make up our bodies and which make the world go round, but we are, know, have, something that isn't even real for non-Jews [that's supra-rational and won't stand in a universal court], such that Jesus, even if he saves the whole universe (really, truly), doesn't matter to a hill of beans to Jews because we aren't fundamentally the same as everyone else and therein don't require the same things non-Jew might actually require (but which we don’t think or worry about).​

​

We're not talking about subjective beliefs here. It's fine for Jews or anyone else to believe whatever they want, and share those beliefs with whomever wants to believe them. It's fine to believe Jesus is a fraud (and not God), and that the idea of a man-God is false through and through. But hyper-exclusive Jewish theology appears to go dangerously further by implying that universal truths, or truths that are completely and unequivocally true, about the world, and mankind in general, and God in general, are not true for one singular group, Jews. And for one singular, meontological, reason, and one reason alone, they are Jews and not non-Jews.​

​

There's no other reason, no other rhyme, for such a division-causing belief, for if there we're, then some shared objective understanding of the division, some rhyme or reason that rings as true for the non-Jew, as for the Jew, about Jewish exclusivity, would stand to mediate, and thus mitigate somewhat, the very division the mediation bridges.​

​

If there were some objective reality, shared by Jew and non-Jew, that could explain the nature (essence) of Jewish identity which makes the Jew wholly other from all others, then that objective knowledge, shared between Jew and non-Jew, would bridge the gap and close the fissure, rendering Jewish exclusivity true only for a time, i.e., before the shared knowledge that forms the mediation closes the fissure, and for the sake of some higher principle requiring, for a time, the division and absolute exclusivity of Jewish identity (but only for a time).​

​

Jews, like everyone else, are free to believe anything they like, about themselves and others, about God and the universe. No one should argue otherwise. But there's one belief that's singularly unique to Jews, exclusive to Jews, that crosses (so to say) the line, into a meontology that’s unmediatable with non-Jews by reason of the meontological nature of the alleged, or real, division.​

​

It's the belief that Jews inhabit a separate reality from non-Jews. Not a separate thought-space, or idea-realm, or theological worldview (all of which are fine and dandy), but a genuinely real separation that allows truths that are concrete, tangible, real, non-negotiable elements of every other human’s existence (we're talking objective reality not mere Gentile subjectively), are just as objectively, really, and genuinely, not real for Jews for the singular and expressed reason that they’re Jews, and not non-Jews. Jewish identity ---itself--- alone--- being the meontological essence whose essential nature is that it’s not an essence like any other, nor mediate-able by means of any shared, essential, non-Jewish reality.​

---

 

[John D. Brey]

It's the belief that Jews inhabit a separate reality from non-Jews. Not a separate thought-space, or idea-realm, or theological worldview (all of which are fine and dandy), but a genuinely real separation that allows truths that are concrete, tangible, real, non-negotiable elements of every other human’s existence (we're talking objective reality not mere Gentile subjectively), are just as objectively, really, and genuinely, not real for Jews for the singular and expressed reason that they’re Jews, and not non-Jews. Jewish identity ---itself--- alone--- being the meontological essence whose essential nature is that it’s not an essence like any other, nor mediate-able by means of any shared, essential, non-Jewish reality.​

---

Something new comes out of all this, and you opened it up in the message we're discussing. It's the fact that if Jewish thought is supra-rational, then there is no transcendental signifier, no root, that forces Jewish though and non-Jewish thought to unify according to a root that transcends Jew and non-Jew. What this means is not only that a Jew doesn't believe he ever has to take any non-Jewish argument too seriously, but that his entire epistemology is set up on the basis of that belief. Which means in an argument with a non-Jew, anything the non-Jew interprets Rabbi Hirsch to be saying, or meaning, based on an interpretive hermeneutic that considers itself universal, concrete, objective, and most importantly based on seeking a root truth that anchors the interpretation, the Jew can just poo poo, even calling the interpretation poo poo, since the Jew quite literally doesn't share any hermeneutical objectivity with the non-Jew, since the poor ole non-Jew can only use reason and rationality while the Jew can use holy/supra-rationality.

Jean Baudrillard worried intently about the problem of an interpretation that assumes it isn't grounded in a universal manner such that "truth" can be reached by one and all. Without such a universal, objective, root, ground, transcendental signifier, all thought would be as unrooted, between every thinker, as Jewish thought is unrooted from non-Jewish thought:

All of Western faith and good faith was engaged in this wager on representation: that a sign could refer to the depth of meaning, that a sign could exchange for meaning and that something could guarantee this exchange—God, of course. But what if God himself can be simulated, that is to say, reduced to the signs which attest his existence? Then the whole system becomes weightless, it is no longer anything but a gigantic simulacrum—not unreal, but a simulacrum, never again exchanging for what is real, but exchanging in itself, in an uninterrupted circuit without reference or circumference.​

​

Jean Baudrillard: Simulations, p. 11.​

Baudrillard is asking what if tautologies are all there is? The mark of circumcision represents the fact that God told Jews to mark themselves with circumcision (a tautology). The "covenant" is a "covenant" is a "covenant" and that's just what it is (another tautology). In this case, the whole system becomes weightless and is no longer anything but a gigantic simulacrum. It's not unreal --there really is a mark of circumcision (but it just marks that God says to mark) but just a simulacrum that will never again exchange a tautology (the mark of circumcision is the mark of circumcison, that's what, all, it is, represents, that God said to mark the mark of circumcision) for something real, a real signifier of a real, universal (non-binary) reality, but exchanging, in itself, in an uninterrupted, tautological, circumscribed, circularity, wrapped around the flesh, without real reference or circumference, just, basically, either holy-subjectivity, holy supra-rationality ---vouchsafed by God alone, to Jews alone, in a manner that leaves all non-Jews outside of this holy-subjectivity, this holy supra-rationality, for all eternity, and for the glory of Jewish existence.

Convert, in the company of Jewish males (convince them you're Jewish enough, and believe you me, they get to decide), and you too can experience this holy/supra-rationality.



John

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, look, you omitted Rabbi Hirsch saying circumcision is only a benefit if you fulfill the law:

The inference is two-fold. On the one-hand, "Be a mensch, a decent human being, before you attempt to be a Jew." First acquire all the humane virtues; only then can you become a Jew.​

Rabbi Hirsch seems to imply you must first acquire the human virtues related to the righteous requirement of the Law before you attempt to be one of the circumcision (i.e., a Jew). Stated another way, circumcision is of benefit only when you've already practiced the Law and become competent at it: First acquire all the righteous virtues related to performance of the Law, and only then can you be circumcised. If that's not clear enough, we have this:

Now, had Scripture not told us here that Avraham was ninety-nine years old when the covenant of Milah ---which is the founding covenant of Judaism---was established with him, we would have thought that all of Abraham's virtues, of which we have learned until now, were the result of the covenant established with him in youth, and that the whole flowering of this covenant consisted in these virtues. In fact, however, they all preceded the covenant of Milah. The full attainment of the purely humane virtues preceded the mitzvah stated here: והיה תמים. The covenant of Avraham [that is circumcision, the founding covenant of Judaism] is a higher perfection of the humane virtues.​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17:1 (bracked added by me).​

Rabbi Hirsch appears to be saying Abraham was already a righteous person before he was then given the great honor to enter the covenant of circumcision. Rabbi Hirsch seem to be saying something similar to St. Paul, vis-à-vis, first attain to the righteousness of the Law, and then you can consider a higher perfection, i.e., becoming one of the circumcision by being circumcised.



But the instructions found in Genesis chapter 17, say to be circumcised (without saying what that is, verse 10). And then it says secondarily to cut the flesh of the foreskin as a "sign" of what circumcision is (verse 11). Cutting the flesh is not circumcision, but a "sign" of what circumcision is (Rabbi Hirsch notes this himself). A sign is some kind of emblem that gives an idea of what it signifies. If you conflate the two (sign and what is signified by the sign) you have an utterly meaningless tautology.

What does cutting off flesh down there signify to you? What does the "sign" signify to you? In other words, why there? Why blood? Why cutting flesh, why the penis, why metzizah, etc. etc.? ------These are all "signs" signifying what circumcision is, and is all about. The signs are not circumcision (they're the sign signifying what circumcision is).

The sign of circumcision (i.e., cutting the flesh of the foreskin) is a chok חק for Israel. What the sign of circumcision means is unknown for Israel until Messiah reveals it to Israel. Israel faithfully cuts the flesh (of the foreskin), to produce the sign, and will do so, until Messiah tells them what it means. That's what they're suppose to do. But they're not suppose to conflate sign and signified as though they're the same thing.

Now poor ole YoursTrue seems to be utterly confused by all the exegetical shenanigans taking place in the Jewish interpretation of Genesis 17:10-11. And who can blame her? And now stupid ole me is going to make it still worse by unwrapping all the Hebrew high jinks going on if we but scratch deeper than the surface of the Masoretic Text.

Two Hebrew words are found in Genesis 17:10-11. The word used for being "circumcised" is מול, while the word used for cutting the flesh of your penis is מלל. They're not the same word. And the latter of the two means to cut, while Rabbi Hirsch tells us that strangely enough only here in Genesis 17 is מול used as though it means the cutting. In other words, and Rabbi Hirsch points this out, מול doesn't even mean to cut. That's מלל.

Now a Christian like YoursTrue should truly know just how well-versed St. Paul was, even though he was often speaking to Hebrew illiterates who don't even know the brilliance of his writing.

Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilators of flesh. For we are the circumcision, we who worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.​

​

Philippians 3:2-3.​

Hebrew illiterates think Paul is just being inflammatory toward Jews, as though he's just arguing tit-for-tat. But Paul reveals an incredible mystery unknown to most Christian exegetes, but well-known to his exegetical Jewish peers like the great Ramban. What concerns Ramban about Genesis 17, is what Paul reveals to his Christian audience without them having a clue what he's revealing since in many cases they don't know Hebrew grammar from a hill of beans.

Paul reveals that what's bothering Ramban (or will bother Ramban since Paul predates him) is that in the Hebrew text of Genesis chapter 17, there are two distinct words being interpreted and translated as "circumcision" (מלל and מול). Paul properly translates מלל into the Greek κατατομην translated into English as, to scratch, cut, or mutilate. He then uses a different Greek word to translate מול; he uses the Greek word περιτομη, which in English means "circumcision" or to "circumcise." What Paul is revealing is that in Genesis chapter 17, the Jewish interpretation and translation conflates two distinct words מלל (κατατομην, scratch, cut, mutilate) and מול (περιτομη, circumcision) as though they're speaking of the same thing when they're not.

Paul uses sanctified sarcasm to imply that anyone who thinks מול is מלל (or conflates them) can't be anything but a "mutilator" of the flesh since if the word מלל means the same thing as מול "circumcision," then "the circumcision" המול is speaking of "mutilators of the flesh" since the words don't have distinct --different ---meanings. Paul is saying that if circumcision, and the sign of circumcision, are just a tautology (if they mean the same thing, and thus nothing really) then all circumcision can possibly be is mutilating the penis. But that's not true. Mutilating the penis is a "sign" signifying what מול "circumcision" actually means. If it means merely mutilating the penis, then to be "the circumcision" is merely to be a mutilator of the flesh. Paul is pointing out that Jews who think this way (i.e. that מול and מלל are talking about the same thing, rather one being a sign of something it signifies in some way) can't be anything but mutilators of the flesh since they're undeniably saying mutilating the flesh is the fulfillment of mutilating the flesh, while Genesis 17, and Paul, imply mutilating the flesh, though a strange sign indeed, signifies something that isn't mutilating the flesh (something Messiah will reveal in good time).

In a verses never exegeted properly, Paul proves that by their own choice ----i.e., turning Genesis 17:10-11 into an asinine tautology rather than admit that for Israel circumcision is a chok חק (such that they should obediently perform the ritual while admitting they don't know what it means), Jews make the sign of the covenant mean that once you've mutilated the flesh (i.e., manufactured the "sign") you've risen above your peers. Paul's statement in Philippians 3:2-3 is a brilliant way of saying that any Jew who turns a chok חק (a decree whose meaning is unknown) into a thoughtless, stupid, tautology (cutting the flesh signifies cutting the flesh) is nothing but a mutilator of the flesh according to their own thoughtless reasoning. Paul can say, as can anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Hebrew, that if the shoe fits a person must wear it.



John

It is quite clear that nobody could fulfill the law. Jesus did, but he was the only person who fulfilled it.

 

[John D. Brey]

It is quite clear that nobody could fulfill the law. Jesus did, but he was the only person who fulfilled it.

The debate going on here could be said to be that for Christians, only Jesus could fulfill the Law, while for Jews, any Jew can fulfill the Law if they're up to it. The debate rages around why Jesus is the exclusive person able to fulfill the Law in Christianity, while in Judaism, any Jew can do what Jesus is alleged to do in Christianity.

Context is everything. Jews are sound, wise, correct, in their context. It's where the contexts don't jibe where it's fun to try and see why?



John

 

[YoursTrue]

The debate going on here could be said to be that for Christians, only Jesus could fulfill the Law, while for Jews, any Jew can fulfill the Law if they're up to it. The debate rages around why Jesus is the exclusive person able to fulfill the Law in Christianity, while in Judaism, any Jew can do what Jesus is alleged to do in Christianity.

Context is everything. Jews are sound, wise, correct, in their context. It's where the contexts don't jibe where it's fun to try and see why?



John

The law was written so that no one but a perfect man could fulfill it in its entirety. The apostle Paul wrote about this at Galatians chapter 3 and knew that only Jesus fulfilled the law. I hope you will read it.

 

[John D. Brey]

The law was written so that no one but a perfect man could fulfill it in its entirety. The apostle Paul wrote about this at Galatians chapter 3 and knew that only Jesus fulfilled the law. I hope you will read it.

. . . Just in case you haven't surmised . . . I'm a Christian through and through. In no way am I ashamed to say I've dedicated my life fully to Christ.




John

 

[YoursTrue]

. . . Just in case you haven't surmised . . . I'm a Christian through and through. In no way am I ashamed to say I've dedicated my life fully to Christ.




John

Thank you for your answer. So again -- according to what I understand from the Bible the Law was fulfilled in the Christ.

 

[dybmh]

When you point out that nothing Jews do is supposed to be for a rational reason, benefit, or gain, i.e., it must all be done lishmah

I would have to go back and re-read what I said to be sure, but, I think I limited myself to what the Rabbi wrote in the commentary of Genesis 17 compared to what is written in Romans 2.

That's all.

You are welcome to your personal interpretation as long as it does not fraudulantly claim that an authority agrees when they don't. Especially if they give their conclusion immediately following what you have quoted and you knowingly omit it.

Other than that, you have typed a lot. I will probably read it tomorrow. No promises.

 

[rosends]

When you point out that nothing Jews do is supposed to be for a rational reason, benefit, or gain, i.e., it must all be done lishmah, in my opinion you're supporting the idea that the entire Torah is a chok, and that Jewish thought itself, must be treated as such. Jewish thought that is lishmah, for the sake of heaven, is, as you imply, supra-rational (there can be no rational motivation toward benefiting be it money, fame, fortune, nor even gaining valuable knowledge). Ergo, Judaism itself is fundamentally, when the Jew is functioning correctly, just like a chok. Jewish identity is a chok, circumcision is a chok, everything Jewish is a chok. And this is the understandable glory of Judaism. Doing things without seeking a reason, or rationale, for why they're done: just trusting God.

​

But if instead you understand lishma as meaning something else, you end up with different conclusions.

What is learning torah lishma?

In pirkei avot chapter 6 Rebbi Meir lists various benefits that will happen to one who learns "torah lishma" such as "it is revealed to him the secrets of the Torah. He becomes like an increasingly

judaism.stackexchange.com

 

[Ebionite]

Thank you for your answer. So again -- according to what I understand from the Bible the Law was fulfilled in the Christ.

The fulfilment of the law relates to religious prejudice.

 

[YoursTrue]

The debate going on here could be said to be that for Christians, only Jesus could fulfill the Law, while for Jews, any Jew can fulfill the Law if they're up to it. The debate rages around why Jesus is the exclusive person able to fulfill the Law in Christianity, while in Judaism, any Jew can do what Jesus is alleged to do in Christianity.

Context is everything. Jews are sound, wise, correct, in their context. It's where the contexts don't jibe where it's fun to try and see why?



John

First of all, apparently for a long time now for some the Messiah has not made an arrival. Yes, seeing 'why' can be problematic for some to give an answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

The fulfilment of the law relates to religious prejudice.

Can you please explain what you mean by that?

 

[Ebionite]

Can you please explain what you mean by that?

The language of fulfilment relates to Psalm 69 and 109 via Acts 1:16-20, and to Psalm 69, 109, and 35 via John 15:25-26
It also relates to the law from this:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matthew 5:18

One implication is that the law remains in full until the fulfilment of the spirit of truth is realized. In this context the law is Torah, which means teaching or instruction, so fulfilment of the law is realized when the student acquires knowledge of the truth. The specifics of this knowledge derive from the context. In this case the context relates to how the fate(s) of Judas connects to testimony about the Messiah.

 

[YoursTrue]

The language of fulfilment relates to Psalm 69 and 109 via Acts 1:16-20, and to Psalm 69, 109, and 35 via John 15:25-26
It also relates to the law from this:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matthew 5:18

One implication is that the law remains in full until the fulfilment of the spirit of truth is realized. In this context the law is Torah, which means teaching or instruction, so fulfilment of the law is realized when the student acquires knowledge of the truth. The specifics of this knowledge derive from the context. In this case the context relates to how the fate(s) of Judas connects to testimony about the Messiah.

How is it prejudicial though? I'm stll not sure of what you're saying...we can go back to Abraham, right? Ever thought about that? it's interesting..

 

[Ebionite]

How is it prejudicial though?

Because "hated without a cause" describes prejudice.

I'm stll not sure of what you're saying...we can go back to Abraham, right?

What I'm saying is based on a literal interpretation of the language of fulfilment. Once you recognize the associations between the prophetic Psalms and the characters who were most closely connected to the betrayal it gets clearer.

Genesis 15 connects all this to Abraham (justice and righteousness are both translations of the Hebrew word TzDK). Knowledge implies belief in the truth of something.

He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:11

And he believed in YHWH; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Genesis 15:6

Genesis 15:6 is at the center of the doctrinal dispute between James and Paul over faith vs works, Paul connects to Judas' betrayal via Paul's doctrine of vicarious atonement.

 

[YoursTrue]

The language of fulfilment relates to Psalm 69 and 109 via Acts 1:16-20, and to Psalm 69, 109, and 35 via John 15:25-26
It also relates to the law from this:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matthew 5:18

One implication is that the law remains in full until the fulfilment of the spirit of truth is realized. In this context the law is Torah, which means teaching or instruction, so fulfilment of the law is realized when the student acquires knowledge of the truth. The specifics of this knowledge derive from the context. In this case the context relates to how the fate(s) of Judas connects to testimony about the Messiah.

OK, but now that you mention it, it does say that the entire law would be fulfilled. Very interesting.
As an addendum, I quote from Matthew 5:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."