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

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

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

Gender, Speciation, and the New Spiritual Species.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither bond nor free, male nor female, for you are all a symbiogenesis in Christ Jesus. . . And if anyone is in Christ, he's a new species: for him, the old things are no more. All of these have become utterly new.

Galatians 3:28; 2 Corinthians 5:17.​

In Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan's book on the evolution of species (Acquiring Genomes) they question the Neo-Darwinian theory of speciation and suggest that speciation is in fact most often, and mostly, the result of symbiogenesis (p.12). They concede that often the symbiosis between the the two parties to the relationship is a relationship between a parasite and a host, and that though often times the parasite will kill the host, ending the relationship (resulting in death to the parasite), sometimes the interrelationship becomes, "convivial to the point where neither organism exists without the other . . . These mergers, long-term biological fusions beginning as symbiosis, are the engine of species evolution" (ibid.).




John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither bond nor free, male nor female, for you are all a symbiogenesis in Christ Jesus. . . And if anyone is in Christ, he's a new species: for him, the old things are no more. All of these have become utterly new.

Galatians 3:28; 2 Corinthians 5:17.​

In Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan's book on the evolution of species (Acquiring Genomes) they question the Neo-Darwinian theory of speciation and suggest that speciation is in fact most often, and mostly, the result of symbiogenesis (p.12). They concede that often the symbiosis between the the two parties to the relationship is a relationship between a parasite and a host, and that though often times the parasite will kill the host, ending the relationship (resulting in death to the parasite), sometimes the interrelationship becomes, "convivial to the point where neither organism exists without the other . . . These mergers, long-term biological fusions beginning as symbiosis, are the engine of species evolution" (ibid.).

Parasitism is a close relationship between species, where one organism, the parasite, lives on or inside another organism, the host . . . and is adapted structurally to this way of life. . . There are six major parasitic strategies of exploitation of animal hosts, namely parasitic castration, directly transmitted parasitism (by contact), trophically-transmitted parasitism (by being eaten), vector-transmitted parasitism, parasitoidism, and micropredation. One major axis of classification concerns invasiveness: an endoparasite lives inside the host's body; an ectoparasite lives outside, on the host's surface.

Wikipedia.​

The Talmud claims that a female's "passion" is insider her, while a male's is outside him. In his cult-classic, Sex and Character, Otto Weininger implies that the female is indwelt by the demon (the majority of the clitoris, which is the female analogue to the male-organ, exists inside the female body), while it's an ectoparasite so far as the male body is concerned (it's attached and dangles on the outside of the body). To the extent that the original human's genitalia was what we now consider "female" (now that there's duality of gender) we can say that if Genesis 2:21 is the initial creation or graft of the newfangled organ that initially creates gender-duality, i.e., the phallus, then the phallus is an ectoparasite that lives outside the temple of the prototype human body and which uses "parasitic-castration" (and thereafter "directly-transmitted-parasitism") as the strategy for parasiting the original human body (the first case of this parasitic-castration, and directly-transmitted-parasitism, leading to the conception and birth of the ******* Cain).

Parasitic castration is the strategy, by a parasite, of blocking reproduction by its host, completely or in part, to its own benefit. This is one of six major strategies within parasitism.

Ibid.​

How perfect is it then that Abraham uses ritual-castration to undo the parasitic-castration related the the deviled-flesh that all the phallic-cults in the ancient world either demonized or worshiped as a demon lord. More importantly, if Genesis 2:21, is the graft whereby the phallus first becomes an ectoparasite, as the Talmud and Jewish midrashim in general toy with throughout midrash, then the original human presumably possessed an original, non-phallic, mechanism for reproduction which was side-tracked in the very beginning by the original desecration of the human body (the graft of the ectoparasite: the phallus, Gen. 2:21). Naturally this implies that the actual firstborn of the first actual human was supposed to be born of a virgin (a biological temple with an intact veil).

How perfect then that Abraham's first spiritual offspring is born of a virgin (whose hymenal veil is intact until her firstborn's birth rather than his conception) long after he (Abraham) ritually castrates the ectoparasite from his body thereby telling all those with circumcised ears precisely what happened in the garden, but which wasn't, nevertheless, written, in the written writ of the Torah. Abraham's covenant-founding ritual is an eschatological-afflatus (a chok חק, or plural chukkim חקים) which must quite logically be retroactively applied; its meaning is covered-up by the very fore skene of the ritual until the event foretold in the ritual retroactively tells the ritual's fortune.

The orthodox Jewish/Christian claim that the "male" is the first, or initial gender, is correct only technically, semantically, logically. Which is to say that although the woman is the first human (the first human --ha-adam --is a woman), the fact that this first human is a singularity logically implies the woman isn't the first "gender." The male is the first instance of gender-differentiation in flesh since the creation of the phallus instantaneously creates gender (male and female). Ergo, the male is the first "gender" and the creative instance of gender-differentiation, while the woman is the first human, and the original body-type of the original human.




John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
The orthodox Jewish/Christian claim that the "male" is the first, or initial gender, is correct only technically, semantically, logically. Which is to say that although the woman is the first human (the first human --ha-adam --is woman), the fact that this first human is a singularity logically implies the woman isn't the first "gender." The male is the first instance of gender-differentiation in flesh since the creation of the phallus instantaneously creates gender (male and female). Ergo, the male is the first "gender" and the creative instance of gender-differentiation, while the woman is the first human, and the original body-type of the original human.

In truth, the first human "body" is female because of the distinction between "body" and "soul": "body" being the materialization and or the home/temple, of the "soul." The "soul" is the mind, thought, idea, word, imagination, spirit, male, that, in this current dispensation, wrongly appears to parasite the female body through "parasitic-castration" and thereafter "directly-transmitted-parasitism." In other words, the graft that situates the phallus as "male-flesh" implies that, since, as the sages tell us, "as above, so below" (i.e., human reality is supposed to be a mirror of heavenly, or divine truths), then, so too, the immaterial soul, the mind, or word, that lives and abides in the physical body, must, like the fleshly male, parasite the fleshly female and therein directly transmit its parasitical soulishness into the holy body of the woman/female.

The demonic evil associated with the phallus is that it conflates soul and body, mind and body, male and female, as though flesh can be male just as surely as flesh can be female. The Masoretic malfeasance of the Tanakh and Old Testament is precisely that they imply that the original human flesh was phallic-male. This backwardization and conflation of the strictures of binary reality/duality (masculinity and femininity enfleshed in the phallus) is the source of evil in the world since it implies that the divine male, the divine mind, the Word, as is the case of the phallus, parasites the physicality and biological reality of the woman, the female, the world, so that the offspring of soul and body is Cain and will always be Cain or Cain's ******* offspring.

Since the parasite/host duality is only correct where the parasite is, at the base of reality, an epiphenomenon of the host (based on their shared origin/genesis), that's come home to roost, so to say, the idea that the original human body was male, and the soul breathed into it female (or also male, homosexuality), makes the material manifestation male, original, whereas the immaterial soul is therein female, an epiphenomenon, that parasites the male body. It's this backward epistemological foundation upon which even the most advanced nations of the Western world base all or most of their theology, and science (ala Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism), as well as their political and social institutions. Which is why they cannot, and will not last. They're erected not only on a provable lie, but one so easily correctable that the fact that it's not been corrected reveals how difficult and painful it would be for the mohel to simply cut an inch or so deeper into the demonic lie of "male" flesh through which all these bastardization come, so to say, and are constantly being reproduced, as though the reproduction of this greatest of lies lies in the very seed, at the very root and testimony, of the greatest passion of the allegedly original phallic-male.



John
 
Last edited:

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither bond nor free, male nor female, for you are all a symbiogenesis in Christ Jesus. . . And if anyone is in Christ, he's a new species: for him, the old things are no more. All of these have become utterly new.

Galatians 3:28; 2 Corinthians 5:17.​

In Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan's book on the evolution of species (Acquiring Genomes) they question the Neo-Darwinian theory of speciation and suggest that speciation is in fact most often, and mostly, the result of symbiogenesis (p.12). They concede that often the symbiosis between the the two parties to the relationship is a relationship between a parasite and a host, and that though often times the parasite will kill the host, ending the relationship (resulting in death to the parasite), sometimes the interrelationship becomes, "convivial to the point where neither organism exists without the other . . . These mergers, long-term biological fusions beginning as symbiosis, are the engine of species evolution" (ibid.).




John
Kindly let me check, if anything in Galatians or Corinthians is revealed to Jesus in a direct Converse from G-d (the Father),please. Right?

Regards
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
In truth, the first human "body" is female because of the distinction between "body" and "soul": "body" being the materialization and or the home/temple, of the "soul." The "soul" is the mind, thought, idea, word, imagination, spirit, male, that, in this current dispensation, wrongly appears to parasite the female body through "parasitic-castration" and thereafter "directly-transmitted-parasitism." In other words, the graft that situates the phallus as "male-flesh" implies that, since, as the sages tell us, "as above, so below" (i.e., human reality is supposed to be a mirror of heavenly, or divine truths), then, so too, the immaterial soul, the mind, or word, that lives and abides in the physical body, must, like the fleshly male, parasite the fleshly female and therein directly transmit its parasitical soulishness into the holy body of the woman/female.

The demonic evil associated with the phallus is that it conflates soul and body, mind and body, male and female, as though flesh can be male just as surely as flesh can be female. The Masoretic malfeasance of the Tanakh and Old Testament is precisely that they imply that the original human flesh was phallic-male. This backwardization and conflation of the strictures of binary reality/duality (masculinity and femininity enfleshed in the phallus) is the source of evil in the world since it implies that the divine male, the divine mind, the Word, as is the case of the phallus, parasites the physicality and biological reality of the woman, the female, the world, so that the offspring of soul and body is Cain and will always be Cain or Cain's ******* offspring.

Since the parasite/host duality is only correct where the parasite is at the base of reality an epiphenomenon of the host (based on their shared origin/genesis), come home to roost, so to say, the idea that the original human body was male, and the soul breathed into it female (or also male, homosexuality), makes the material manifestation male, original, whereas the immaterial soul is therein female, an epiphenomenon, that parasites the male body. It's this backward epistemological foundation upon which even the most advanced nations of the Western world base all or most of their theology, and science (ala Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism), as well as their political and social institutions. Which is why they cannot, and will not last. They're erected not only on a provable lie, but one so easily correctable that the fact that it's not been corrected reveals how difficult and painful it would be for the mohel to simply cut an inch or so deeper into the demonic lie of "male" flesh through which all these bastardization come, so to say, and are constantly being reproduced, as though the reproduction of this greatest of lies lies in the very seed, at the very root and testimony, of the greatest passion of the allegedly genuine male.

The person able to digest the foregoing, so to say, would ask the question that's most pertinent based on an understanding of the foregoing: If body, physical body, biological body, is exclusively female, and if in the host/parasite dichotomy, the host is original, and the parasite an epiphenomenon come out of the host, and returned, to roost, in the propitious symbiogenesis (holy matrimony) so sought after, then why, pray tell, does the Torah tell us about the creation of the body of the first human first? Shouldn't the text tell us of the creation of the soul first, and then the body, and then the marriage or symbiosis of the two?



John
 
Last edited:

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
What say you?

John
" Galatians 3:28; 2 Corinthians 5:17."

I have checked, the above verses " Galatians 3:28; 2 Corinthians 5:17." have not been revealed to (Jesus)Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah in a direct Converse from G-d (the Father), and inspiration, in deeds as well as in conversation, only comes to those who get direct Converse from G-d (the Father) but in the interval times, it transpired to one, please. Right?
The Second Coming has talked about it at length, please? Right?

Regards
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
" Galatians 3:28; 2 Corinthians 5:17."

I have checked, the above verses " Galatians 3:28; 2 Corinthians 5:17." have not been revealed to (Jesus)Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah in a direct Converse from G-d (the Father), and inspiration, in deeds as well as in conversation, only comes to those who get direct Converse from G-d (the Father) but in the interval times, it transpired to one, please. Right?
The Second Coming has talked about it at length, please? Right?

How did you check whether Yeshua had direct conversation with God on the matters of Galatians 3:28 and 2 Corinthians 5:17? Did you converse with God, the Father, about it yourself?



John
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
" Galatians 3:28; 2 Corinthians 5:17."

I have checked, the above verses " Galatians 3:28; 2 Corinthians 5:17." have not been revealed to (Jesus)Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah in a direct Converse from G-d (the Father), and inspiration, in deeds as well as in conversation, only comes to those who get direct Converse from G-d (the Father) but in the interval times, it transpired to one, please. Right?
The Second Coming has talked about it at length, please? Right?
It is easy to check and confirm that " Galatians 3:28; 2 Corinthians 5:17 " is not from Jesus in any form, please.
People belonging to Hellenist-Pauline Christianity have been thinking about this matter for a long time and now Catholics, Protestants and Messianic Israelites have published Red Letter Bibles* to facilitate in this connection, please. Right?

In these Bibles they have colored in red letters all the stuff that is supposedly/tentatively and or that which might have been said by (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, one gets to know, please. Right?

One can, therefore, straightaway ignore/reject what is in black letters in these Bibles as it is not from (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah and cannot provide meaningful guidance in ethical, moral and or spiritual issues of humanity, rather it could create confusion in the minds of those who want to follow Yeshua, I understand, please. Right?

Regards
____________
*Holy Bible King James Version (Red Letter Edition)
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.
World Messianic Bible
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
It is easy to check and confirm that " Galatians 3:28; 2 Corinthians 5:17 " is not from Jesus in any form, please.
People belonging to Hellenist-Pauline Christianity have been thinking about this matter for a long time and now Catholics, Protestants and Messianic Israelites have published Red Letter Bibles* to facilitate in this connection, please. Right?

In these Bibles they have colored in red letters all the stuff that is supposedly/tentatively and or that which might have been said by (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, one gets to know, please. Right?

One can, therefore, straightaway ignore/reject what is in black letters in these Bibles as it is not from (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah and cannot provide meaningful guidance in ethical, moral and or spiritual issues of humanity, rather it could create confusion in the minds of those who want to follow Yeshua, I understand, please. Right?

Regards
____________
*Holy Bible King James Version (Red Letter Edition)
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.
World Messianic Bible

. . . Don't we need the black letters for context with which to understand the red letters? Could we make a Bible based just on the red letters alone, nothing more, nothing less?



John
 
Top