Holy Moses.

[dybmh]

Maybe Moses is under great duress knowing that if he communicates too nakedly he's in danger of coming under the hand of an angel of death?

OK. Maybe.

What was Moses trying to communicate by striking the Rock?

He was angry.

If Moses gave his life to break the stone tablets, or to strike the Rock, then we'd be pretty remiss not to receive his message in a bottle. Ditto for most of the other prophets, many of whom died trying to tell us something we might not even want to hear.

The message, sadly, directed to the Jewish people, "Stop with the idols and follow the commandments."

 

[dybmh]

In the word demon שד, the mark of circumcision, the yod, is completely covered up. In lamb, it's barely visible under the woolen veil, such that only when the lamb is shorn, the veil torn down the middle, do we get to spy Shaddai.

... do we get to spy ... the demonic? That's shade + a yud.

Before his circumcision Abraham could not fully apprehend God because his body was still encased in the demonic shell, the foreskin covering the phallus.

Elliot R. Wolfson, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation: From Midrashic Trope to Mystical Symbol.

Yeah, that's true.

In its generic sense, the term "son of man" means someone born to a mother and thus a member of the human race. But in the messianic-sense, it means "son of Adam." Adam's prelapse son. Just one. And since Adam was pregnant prior to the creation of Eve, and prior to the original sin, his true firstborn was stillborn. But he's still born. How, is the greatest story never told.

It's a term which connects a human being to Adam's sin. The christian son of man is from the book Enoch, it's a myth. Probably popular in Jesus' time.

The point is that double meanings and assumptions are trouble.

 

[John D. Brey]

Would this also apply if Moses came from Indus Valley? What is a serpent?

I apologize but I don't understand the first question and the second seems odd at best.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

... do we get to spy ... the demonic? That's shade + a yud.

Your statement lends itself almost too perfectly to the concept of Nehustan so long as we're in a kabbalistic frame of mind since the idea is that God uses the serpent, the demon, as the outer foliage (the שד) of the tree --or branch---of life (the yod). The serpent protects, guards (shamar-el, שמר–אל "Samael"), the Name, the covenant, the Circumcision (as the fore skene of the Circumcision), until the literal fulfillment of the passage you noted earlier: Exodus 23:23:

For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut him off.

Exodus 23:23.​

Exegeted literally, without allowing traditional presumptions to run roughshod over the text, the text says God will use his angel to guard and protect Israel until they come into the holy land. And then God will, and Moses applauds this (Exodus 11:15), "cut him off." The text says God will cut "him," (third person masculine singular הוא), i.e., the angel of death (whom Mose calls ---Num. 11:14--- "evil" רעת), off, when Israel reaches the Kingdom age (Revelations 20:10). "You're fired!" Your protection agency is no longer employed here.

Rabbi S.R. Hirsch reads it as I do. Not as a "shad" שד plus a yod ׳ (though, again, I like that), but as a shin ש with a di די.

I can say in all honesty that though its hard for me to imagine any contemporary student of Hirsch reading him as often as I, I've never seen Rabbi Hirsch as animated about anything he's written than the excitement he registers when, consciously and subconsciously, he intuits something of ש–די, and its meaning. He goes on an on about the meaning of די as it relates to the Name Shad-dai.

On the subconscious level, I suspect Rabbi Hirsch is seeing the yod (hand) pass through the veil (dalet) to register itself in full view ala Exodus 13:2. The demon שד will be cut off after the hand (yod) of God י passes through the intact veil ד to register this kind of birth when we see the yod י on the other side of the veil. (יד becomes די). The hand of God has passed from what Rashi calls the "bedchamber of God" (God's womb), through the intact veil of the temple, to be seen by persons outside the most holy place of the temple (which most holy place represents heaven).

Israel saw the high priest go in, and come out, but when someone comes out, before anything, or one, goes in, the one who comes out, literally tearing the veil on the exit (Matthew 1:23; Luke 23:45) is the revelation of the fleshly hand of God: God's yid, yad, yod, or fleshly son-God.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

If Moses gave his life to break the stone tablets, or to strike the Rock, then we'd be pretty remiss not to receive his message in a bottle. Ditto for most of the other prophets, many of whom died trying to tell us something we might not even want to hear.​

The message, sadly, directed to the Jewish people, "Stop with the idols and follow the commandments."

In the context of this thread, the tangible, stone, tablets, are themselves an idol. As is the "voice" of a god that's tangible (vibrating sound waves) and thus part of nature (like stone is).

Moses breaks the tangible Law (the tablets) and then strikes the Rock causing blood (techelet) and water to come out.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Maybe he can only communicate through his spirit to those with ears to hear spiritual things? And maybe outside of that, much is left to angelic messengers and mediators to act on his behalf.​

Nah. That puts God in a box. God is beyond all limits.

. . . Except maybe, limits he puts on himself (kenosis, tzimtzum). In other words, we could say God does nothing willy nilly. If he sends an angel to guard Israel it's not just because he's busy watching a Tik Tok feed. God does nothing arbitrarily. If he uses angelic mediation, he does so for the most serious of reasons.

Perhaps there are limitations on God by reason of the laws he establishes in creating something less than himself. Perhaps the greatest secret of God is that he subjects himself, willingly, to his own laws, his own creation, in a manner that allows him to walk among his creatures, even among thorns and thistles, as an equal, rather than as a serpentine demigod in a garden of paradise?

If his creatures sneak up on him with a hammer and nails he doesn't use his omniscience and omnipotence to turn them into toads. He defeats them according to their own avarice, in his own good time, without breaking one single law that they, and he, is subject to.



John

 

[dybmh]

Exegeted literally, without allowing traditional presumptions to run roughshod over the text, the text says God will use his angel to guard and protect Israel until they come into the holy land.

No. That's not what the text says. The angel isn't with them until they come to the holy land.

For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut him off.​

This angel is the one who joins the Jewish people on their conquest after Moses' passing. It makes an appearance in front of Joshua before the seige of Jericho. I believe it's Joshua 6. "For mine angel shall go before thee" = I'm sending my angel in advance. It will be there waiting for you.

And then God will, and Moses applauds this (Exodus 11:15), "cut him off." The text says God will cut "him," (third person masculine singular הוא),

This isn't Exodus 11:15. There isn't an Exodus 11:15. I tried searching for this reference and can't find it.

the angel of death (whom Mose calls ---Num. 11:14--- "evil" רעת),

It's a big stretch without the first part of the proof. Probably a big stretch with it too.

when Israel reaches the Kingdom age (Revelations 20:10). "You're fired!" Your protection agency is no longer employed here.

Pretty typical marketing from a snake-oil salesperson. Trash talking the competition. No more. Revelations is fan fiction.

I can say in all honesty that though its hard for me to imagine any contemporary student of Hirsch reading him as often as I, I've never seen Rabbi Hirsch as animated about anything he's written than the excitement he registers when, consciously and subconsciously, he intuits something of ש–די, and its meaning. He goes on an on about the meaning of די as it relates to the Name Shad-dai.

Cool. I'll check it out thanks.

On the subconscious level, I suspect Rabbi Hirsch is seeing the yod (hand) pass through the veil (dalet) to register itself in full view ala Exodus 13:2. The demon שד will be cut off after the hand (yod) of God י passes through the intact veil ד to register this kind of birth when we see the yod י on the other side of the veil. (יד becomes די). The hand of God has passed from what Rashi calls the "bedchamber of God" (God's womb), through the intact veil of the temple, to be seen by persons outside the most holy place of the temple (which most holy place represents heaven).

Virtually everything that exists has a duel nature. In Zohar, there's reference to a yod from the right, and a yod from the left. It's obscure, but the point is, just because it's a yod, doesn't make it good.

The same goes for Shaddai. There's a mirror version of Shaddai which is evil and murky. That comes from an *actual* Rabbi. Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla, Gates of Light. Page 58. He starts with a verse:

Genesis 28:3

ג וְאֵ֤ל שַׁדַּי֨ יְבָרֵ֣ךְ אֹֽתְךָ֔ וְיַפְרְךָ֖ וְיַרְבֶּ֑ךָ וְהָיִ֖יתָ לִקְהַ֥ל עַמִּֽים

3 And may the Almighty God bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you

"This attribute is responsible for the prevention of tribulation in the world."

( Prevention! Restriction! Applied in a positive way! Gevurah! "It's Enough!" )​

"Therefore Jacob our father, peace be with him, prayed to אֵ֤ל שַׁדַּי֨. This attribute is also referred to as the fount of living waters. The rationale is that these waters flow from Eden on high, from the source known as Ein Sof ( no end ) where the source of life is disseminated to all living creatures and this source is called, "מְק֥וֹר מַֽיִם־חַיִּ֖ים" (fount of living waters)."

( The source is NOT the ancient of days )
​

"Yet there are other harmful waters which are known as waters of the dead. These murky waters come from the essence of stormy malicious waters. They are alien wells that contain a variety of harmful waters, of which come forth the "bitter cursed waters."

( The source is alien wells. Interesting. )​

Israel saw the high priest go in, and come out, but when someone comes out, before anything, or one, goes in, the one who comes out, literally tearing the veil on the exit (

Matthew 1:23; Luke 23:45) is the revelation of the fleshly hand of God: God's yid, yad, yod, or fleshly son-God.

If it happened, it's just a test to see whch Jews can avoid the temptation of following a man-god like Pharoah.

 

[dybmh]

In the context of this thread, the tangible, stone, tablets, are themselves an idol. As is the "voice" of a god that's tangible (vibrating sound waves) and thus part of nature (like stone is).

God made the tablets, so no, not idol. Just like God made clouds, mountains, fields, beasts of the field... none of them are idols.

The indicator of an idol is when people worship it. Yes, people will worship any manner of things. But unless somone is worshipping the tablets, they're not an idol.

The voice of God? Do people worship it? Not that I'm aware of. Jewish people use God's name as provided by God in scripture. We take guidance from how the patriarchs address God. And we invoke past events where God's actions are remembered and honored. n the middle of all this, we beseech God for forgiveness and healing. And that's pretty much it. No one is worshipping a voice / vibrations.

But nice try validating worshipping the god-man.

 

[dybmh]

Moses breaks the tangible Law (the tablets) and then strikes the Rock causing blood (techelet) and water to come out.

Moses had anger issues.

No blood from the rock, too. that's imagined.

 

[dybmh]

. . . Except maybe, limits he puts on himself (kenosis, tzimtzum).

Nope. Those are contractions. God is limiting the ohr ein sof, the infinite light. That's not God.

If he sends an angel to guard Israel it's not just because he's busy watching a Tik Tok feed.

Moses had died. That's the reason.

If he uses angelic mediation, he does so for the most serious of reasons.

Isaiah 55:8-9. God has prefernces, opinions, and makes choices. There doesn't need to be a reason. Maybe God takes pleasure in sending angels showing the magnitude of it's creative power.

Perhaps there are limitations on God by reason of the laws he establishes in creating something less than himself. Perhaps the greatest secret of God is that he subjects himself, willingly, to his own laws, his own creation, in a manner that allows him to walk among his creatures, even among thorns and thistles, as an equal, rather than as a serpentine demigod in a garden of paradise?

That's not limitation, that would be a choice.

And anyway, a God who prohibits idol worship would not incarnate and walk among us. God would not incarnate as anything. What ever God incarnated into would automatically be worshipped. If a divine being incarnated into a human form, that would be The Satan.

The holy implements, Moses' staff, have captured your imagination. But they're not God incarnate.

 

[dybmh]

If his creatures sneak up on him with a hammer and nails he doesn't use his omniscience and omnipotence to turn them into toads. He defeats them according to their own avarice, in his own good time, without breaking one single law that they, and he, is subject to.

The guy was preaching false doctrine, was communing with demons, and got himself killed. He had potential but, but like many gurus, the power corrupted him.

 

[dybmh]

God uses the serpent, the demon, as the outer foliage (the שד) of the tree --or branch---of life

Wrong tree, John. The serpent and samael guard the tree of KNOWLEDGE. The divine names, emanations, laws all come from the tree of life. 2 Trees, please don't mix them up causing false equivilance between the elements on the left side of the tree of life and the elements of the left side of the tree of knowledge.

 

[dybmh]

Rabbi S.R. Hirsch reads it as I do.

OK, I read his commentary on Gen 17. Does he *actually* read it as you do?

First he comments that for non-Jews, they do NOT need to convert and get circumsised as you said in the other thread.

A person who is compassionate, forgiving, and benevolent -- qualities demonstrated by Avraham until this point -- is merely the embodiment of the ideal noahide.
​

So, no requirement for a non-Jew to become circumsised and follwo the law. Just be a good person. That's all that's required.

Then he goes on the describe the awesome capabilities of God's restraining restrictive power. This theme of restraint carries through the whole chapter. At a few places he speaks directly to the reader.

Thus, He alone is God; His divinity is sufficient ( די ) for you and for the world. It is enough ( די ) for you that He is your God; and if He is not your God you have nothing.
​

John, Rabbi Hirsch is telling you something. It should be sufficient for you and the world. No Nehushtan, no Jesus, nothing else needs to be added to this theology. And if that's not clear enough:

This interpretation [director of natural order] of the Name ש-די emphasizes the concept God's complete freedom of will and warns against heresy. We should not identify the Creator of the world with that sorcerer's apprentice who forgot the spell with which to control the spirit he himself had produced. This is again the same truth; God is not absorbed by the world, rather, He rules over His world and assigns it law in His free, almighty power.
​

Are you listening John? Rabbi Hirsch says "that" sorcerer's apprentice isn't the Creator. Does Rabbi Hirsch really, actually, agree with you? According to Rabbi Hirsch, Jesus went too far and couldn't control the spirit "he himself created". The spirit in Jesus is not God, doesn't speak for God, it's manufactured.

Also this comment confirms that Rabbi Hirsch does not agree that Samael gave the law.

Further, Rabbi Hirsch also interprets the "goyim" in the covenant as representing the tribes of Israel in addition to the nations of the world. This shows that "goyim" is not code for non-Jews in ever instance.

Rabbi Hirsch also says that the covenant was to create a nation, not a church.

Rabbi Hirsch spends time speaking about the importance of limits. That the law as given in its details, physically, should not be broken. Rabbi Hirsch speaks strongly against following the law "spiritually" with good intentions if it is not carried out physically.

So no, Rabbi Hirsch does read it the same way you do. I think, when you make comments like this, you're depending on the reader not having access to the books you have on your bookshelf so you can say whatever you want and skip over the details contained which disprove your conclusions.

​

 

[John D. Brey]

First he comments that for non-Jews, they do NOT need to convert and get circumsised as you said in the other thread.

A person who is compassionate, forgiving, and benevolent -- qualities demonstrated by Avraham until this point -- is merely the embodiment of the ideal noahide.

[Rabbi Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash.]
​

So, no requirement for a non-Jew to become circumsised and follwo the law. Just be a good person. That's all that's required.

Being a "Noahide," though it's good enough for goyim, is not the same as converting to Judaism. A Gentile can function as a "Noahide" yes. But he can also convert to Judaism and become a Jew, not a Noahide, but to do so requires allowing a Jewish male to make a determination, and also circumcision is required. If the Gentile is already circumcised (as is often the case in Western nations) he still must have blood drawn from the offending organ (the Genitile organ).

The concept of "Noahide" versus "Jew" is, right or wrong, eliminated by Jesus and Paul. According to their teaching, there's now neither Jew nor Noahide but one unified body where before there was a multitude of ethnicities and nationalities. Which segues into this:

Further, Rabbi Hirsch also interprets the "goyim" in the covenant as representing the tribes of Israel in addition to the nations of the world. This shows that "goyim" is not code for non-Jews in ever instance.

Rabbi Hirsch also says that the covenant was to create a nation, not a church.

ונתתיך לגוים. But for this purpose of elevating mankind to spiritual and moral heights, and in addition to this universal significance, My ברית [covenant] ensures you of something unique: You yourself will be the ancestor of a great nation [singular]. This nation will stride before the general multitude of nations [plural] as a model nation [singular] . . ..

The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17.​

Rabbi Hirsch notes that the purpose of the covenant is elevating all mankind, universally, to spiritual and moral heights. -----But, "in addition to this universal significance" of the covenant, the covenant ensures Abraham of something unique in relation to the "multitude of nations": his physical descendants, through Sarah, will play a unique role in the establishment of the covenant of universal spiritual and moral heights. In this something unique, we have Abraham and his physical descendants undeniably being spoken of as distinct from the general "multitude of nations." They will "stride" or "strut" before the "multitude of nations" as the model nation. They're clearly and undeniably distinct entities at this point in the exegesis (a singular nation, versus the multitude of nations).

Nevertheless, the text of Genesis 17:4 speaks of the covenant as making Abraham not the father of a singular nation strutting before the multitude of nations, but, get this, the father of a "multitude of nations." So Rabbi Hirsch's exegesis naturally becomes somewhat labored in trying to equate the singular nation, with the multitude of nations, since we've already read him saying this in the self-same chapter:

What is the meaning of this latter phrase ["multitude of nations]? To maintain that it refers to Avraham's physical descendants is difficult, for they are mentioned only in verse 6. The name "אברהם" also shows that, here, the phrase is not to be taken in the physical sense. 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.

The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17.​

Rabbi Hirsch unequivocally questions how "multitude of nations" can be speaking of Abraham's physical descendants? He says: "here [in the establishing of the covenant], the phrase ["multitude of nations"] is not to be taken in the physical sense." He even gives sound exegetical reason why it can't. And in the same exegesis, of the same chapter, Rabbi Hirsch says this about the very "sign" or "symbol" of this covenant making Abraham the father of a "multitude of nations":

מילה [circumcision] is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but the beginning of a higher "octave." It marks the second, higher "birthday," [i.e., rebirth] man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action. Physical birth belongs to the night . . . but מילה [circumcision], birth as a Jew, belongs to the daytime.

The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17.​

Rabbi Hirsch says the very sign of the covenant that makes Abraham the father of a "multitude of nations, i.e.," brit milah, ritual circumcision, "is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth," it's a mark of a higher birth (a rebirth) since physical conception takes place at night, while circumcision, takes place in the daytime. In other places Rabbi Hirsch remarks that circumcision isn't about physical birth whatsoever, but is about a spiritual birth.

So how can the "multitude of nations" be Abraham's "physical descendants" when in every way Rabbi Hirsch's exegesis says it can't? Well, if the traditional understanding of Israel is correct, it simply must, and thus does. So we're not surprised that after all his sound exegesis pointing out the problems of equating the physical seed with the spiritual seed, the singular nation with the multitude of nations, we read this:

This nation will stride before the general multitude of nations as a model nation, and will itself appear as גוים [goyim], a plurality of nations.

The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17.​

He goes on to imply that each tribe symbolizes a nation and Israel can thus be thought of as a "plurality of nations" even though this makes the exegesis extremely labored if Israel gets to be both the singular nation strutting in front of the multitude of nations, and also the multitude of nations too.

God founded through Avraham not a church, but a nation . . ..

The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17.​

The word "church" speaks of an assembling of a multitude of nations and peoples under one heading, making them one body, such that Rabbi Hirsch's statement is tautological: it can't be refuted since if a "nation" is a "multitude of nations" then, as Wittgenstein points out as the case for a tautology, there's no argument that can deny the tautology since it takes for itself the whole realm of reality.

Rabbi Hirsch's exegesis is not only at least strained in the sense that it's tautological (his nation, is also his multitude of nations, leaving nothing for the poor non-Jewish goyim), but the exegesis whereby he attempts to turn the multitude of "tribes" into a unified assembly, a church-like multitude under one heading, is problematic since the word for the "tribe" מטה is specifically related to patrilineal authority and patronage such that the "staff" of each tribe represents the masculine staff that father's the offspring of each tribe such that taking a knife to that staff, the determinant of patrilineal, tribal, privileges (brit milah, ritual circumcision) appears to speak of the end of tribal privilege, say, for instance, tribal, patrilineal, determination of who can be a priest, thereby opening up the entire realm, priesthood and all, to the entire population of this unique multitude of nations.

Determination of who can be a priest in the nation of Israel is based on "physical" birth, physical patrilineage: who's yer daddy? But the spiritual offspring of Abraham aren't determined in any way by physical birth, but whether or not, in Rabbi Hirsch's terminology, they've been born-again?

The same Jesus and Paul who taught that there's neither physical Jew, nor physical Gentile, in the new assembly, the multitude of nations and people brought under one heading, the ἐκκλησία, also proclaimed that all who are part of this new epoch are priests, and much more than that, are all high priests (with full access to the most holy place), one and all, irregardless of what tribe, ethnicity, religion, or even gender, they are physically, or in the flesh. It matters not a wink who their physical father is, be he Abraham or Gengis Khan, in Christ, all are One, and have, every single one, equal privilege and equal opportunity in every way: no one can stride or strut in front of another based on physical patrilineage or birth. The organ through which those kinds of determinations have been made is bled to death in the establishment of the new covenant of universal equality.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Rabbi Hirsch spends time speaking about the importance of limits. That the law as given in its details, physically, should not be broken. Rabbi Hirsch speaks strongly against following the law "spiritually" with good intentions if it is not carried out physically.

​

And he also says:

מילה [circumcision] is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but the beginning of a higher "octave." It marks the second, higher "birthday," [i.e., rebirth] man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action. Physical birth belongs to the night . . . but מילה [circumcision], birth as a Jew, belongs to the daytime.

The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17.​

Is the law biding on the spirit, and perhaps even the Spirit of the divine? If not, then circumcision could be said to represent being cut free of laws binding on the physical man, and the physical world, and the physical staff, such that someone cut free of such things (whose bled their authority out of their life) could never stride or strut about who his physical father is, what his race, or ethnicity is, even if that father is Abraham, Moses, or Elvis Presley.

The Gospels say that the Law was nailed to the cross with Christ so that when he's resurrected from the grave, he's no longer subject to the law that justified his being nailed to the cross. He has triumphed over the flesh and the Law binding on the flesh if indeed he's been raised from the grave? If he hasn't, then forget every word I've ever said since it's all smoke and mirrors and tricky dicky exegesis if a true resurrection hasn't already occurred.

Paul calls Christ "the Circumcision" and all who are in Christ "the Circumcision," implying that they're no longer bound by titles like "Jew" or "Gentile." They can no longer stride or strut because of their faithfulness to the Law since it has nothing to do with them in that they're circumcised from the staff and tribal affiliations that the Law, particularly in its physical analogue, establishes, and thus has power over.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

God uses the serpent, the demon, as the outer foliage (the שד) of the tree --or branch---of life . . .

Wrong tree, John. The serpent and samael guard the tree of KNOWLEDGE. The divine names, emanations, laws all come from the tree of life. 2 Trees, please don't mix them up causing false equivilance between the elements on the left side of the tree of life and the elements of the left side of the tree of knowledge.

Some Jewish midrashim note that the tree of knowledge grows from the same root as the tree of life and winds itself around the tree of life like the Torah text is wound around a branch literally called the tree of life (Judaism calls the wooden dowel around which the scroll is wound the "tree of life").

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to begin to see the burning bush, and its analogue, Nehushtan, as intimately related to this idea of the tree of knowledge as a serpentine scion growing out of the same root as the tree of life and winding itself so tightly around the tree of life that you'd have to remove this flashy serpent-skinned fore skene even to realize the tree of life is beneath.

To truly be saved by looking up at Nehushtan, you have to be able to pierce through the burning serpent skin to spy Hashem beneath. The Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 29a) struggles with how, why, when a burning bronzed image of serpentine flesh is lifted up in Moses' right hand the children of Israel should be saved from death, and given life? Speaking on behalf of the Talmud, Rabbi Ellie Munk replies:

The answer given is that when the Israelites raised their eyes to Hashem they were healed. . . when the people looked at the serpent at the top of the pole and held the thought that Hashem alone could cause a wound or its healing, then the healing soon followed.

The Call of the Torah, Ellie Munk.​

John

 

[dybmh]

Being a "Noahide," though it's good enough for goyim, is not the same as converting to Judaism. A Gentile can function as a "Noahide" yes. But he can also convert to Judaism and become a Jew, not a Noahide, but to do so requires allowing a Jewish male to make a determination, and also circumcision is required. If the Gentile is already circumcised (as is often the case in Western nations) he still must have blood drawn from the offending organ (the Genitile organ).

Yes, if a person wants to join the Jewish nation, they need to convert. If they're male, the foreskin needs to be removed. If the foreskin is already removed, blood from the location where the foreskin was previously attached is drawn. Not the offending organ, the organ is fine.

The concept of "Noahide" versus "Jew" is, right or wrong, eliminated by Jesus and Paul. According to their teaching, there's now neither Jew nor Noahide but one unified body where before there was a multitude of ethnicities and nationalities.

But the point is, if Jesus did not absolve sin, a non-Jew is not left with only one option, to convert and be circumsised. That is not the only option. If Jesus did not absolve sin, then the non-Jew can remain being a good person and all is good with God.

In this something unique, we have Abraham and his physical descendants undeniably being spoken of as distinct from the general "multitude of nations."

The distinction is given. It's adherence to the details, the physical requirements of the law. That's the unique difference that Rabbi Hirsch is bringing.

This is the difference between Avraham the Jew and Avraham as he was before. Before the covenant was established with Avraham it sufficed that his intenions were good. In the non-Jewish world, any act can be justified by good intentions. In Judaism, however, good intentions are not enough. Good intentions must lead to deeds, and the critereon for goodness of the deed is in God's Torah, which is the call of "די" uttered by God.
​

Good intentions, the spirit of the law, is not די, not enough. In discussing the circumsision, he continues to assert that the commandment must be kept physically in all its details. Even if the commandment is symbolic, it must be completed physically. 'Must' is not an exaggeration.

In symbolic mitzvos [ commandments ] 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.
​

The commandent must be performed physically, not just spiritually.

even though this makes the exegesis extremely labored

Well... your exegesis is often extremely labored, but it doesn't stop you from claiming it valid. If "extremely labored" is the litmus, most of your theories fail.

God founded through Avraham not a church, but a nation . . ..

The text have emphaises this with italics. It was probably emphasised in the original German print.

God founded through Avraham not a church, but a nation
​

Rabbi Hirsch's exegesis is not only at least strained in the sense that it's tautological (his nation, is also his multitude of nations, leaving nothing for the poor non-Jewish goyim

Wrong. As quoted, Rabbi Hirsch does NOT leave the non-Jew with nothing. The non-Jew can be a good person, the ideal noahide.

the exegesis whereby he attempts to turn the multitude of "tribes" into a unified assembly, a church-like multitude under one heading, is problematic

double standard, hypocrisy, your own exegesis is problematic often stemming from false equivilance of similar sounding words, ideas, letters, etc...

the word for the "tribe" מטה is specifically related to patrilineal authority and patronage such that the "staff" of each tribe represents the masculine staff that father's the offspring of each tribe such that taking a knife to that staff

Perfect example, no one is taking a knife to the banners of the tribes. Wrong staff, there's many different phalic shaped items int he world, they're not all penises. But your exegesis assumes that everytime there's something long and straight, it must be a penis. And a penis is kinda like a serpent, and a serpent is from the left side of the tree, which tree doesn't matter, and the other tree has god's names on it, so god must be the serpent, who is the penis... it's all super strained, and problematic. Throwing out on person's strained exegesis in favor of our own is foolishness.

the end of tribal privilege, say, for instance tribal, patrilineal, determination of who can be a priest, thereby opening up the entire realm, priesthood and all, to the entire population of this unique multitude.

Garbage in >>> garbage out. Starting with false equivilance results in false conclusion.

Determination of who can be a priest in the nation of Israel is based on "physical" birth, physical patrilineage: who's yer daddy? But the spiritual offspring of Abraham aren't determined in any way by physical birth, but whether or not, in Rabbi Hirsch's terminology, they're born again?

I refer you to the story of Korach. He complained about the order of the preisthood. Didn't end well for them.

Here's what Rabbi Hirsch says about the High Priest.

Lev 6:15

The priest who will be anointed from among his sons in his place shall do it. It shall be given as an everlasting tribute to God to go up entirely in smoke.

anointed from among his sons. The office of the high priest is bequeathed from father to son -- provided that the son is qualified to succeed his father in his character and spiritual abilities. Even so, the son does not assume office automatically. Rather first the represetentatives of the nation clarify whether he is suitable for the position; then he is inducted into office by anointment. In the absence of anointing oil, he is inducted by investment with garments of the high priest, multiple garments
​

Per Rabbi Hirsch, any high priest is judged by the community. So at least when it comes to high priest, it is non transferrable without community support. Spiritual aptitude does not replace the community.

The same Jesus and Paul who taught that there's neither physical Jew, nor physical Gentile, in the new assembly, the multitude of nations and people brought under one heading, the ἐκκλησία, also proclaimed that all who are part of this new epoch are priests, and much more than that, are all high priests (with full access to the most holy place), one and all, irregardless of what tribe, ethnicity, religion, or even gender, they are physically, or in the flesh.

See above. Rabbi Hirsch disagrees. Jesus and Paul desired the high priesthood. Read Rabbi Hirsch's commentary on Korach. Jealousy is poison.

It matters not a wink who their physical father is, be he Abraham or Gengis Khan, in Christ, all are One, and have, every single one, equal privilege and equal opportunity in every way: no one can stride or strut in front of another based on physical patrilineage or birth. The organ through which those kinds of determinations have been made is bled to death in the establishment of the new covenant of universal equality.

Of course it doesn't matter to you. You're not Jewish and you're not God. God wanted an eternal nation. God wanted a priesthood in that nation. God wanted a high priest above he priesthood. That is God's law. I don't nessessarily like it, but as above so below. There is a heavenly sphere where the hosts are assembled in a hierarchy, and one passes praise and blessings from one to the other, all the way up the chain? It makes sense to have a hierarchy here on earth honoring and glorifying and reflecting the divine order. And it's God's law.

 

[dybmh]

Is the law biding on the spirit, and perhaps even the Spirit of the divine? If not, then circumcision could be said to represent being cut free of laws binding on the physical man, and the physical world, and the physical staff, such that someone cut free of such things (whose bled their authority out of their life) could never stride or strut about who his physical father is, what his race, or ethnicity is, even if that father is Abraham, Moses, or Elvis Presley.

This is precisely opposite of what Rabbi Hirsch says. He says freedom is God's. The circumcision is a restriction placed on physical man, not freedom. So, no.

The Gospels say that the Law was nailed to the cross with Christ so that when he's resurrected from the grave, he's no longer subject to the law that justified his being nailed to the cross. He has triumphed over the flesh and the Law binding on the flesh if indeed he's been raised from the grave? If he hasn't, then forget every word I've ever said since it's all smoke and mirrors and tricky dicky exegesis if a true resurrection hasn't already occurred.

And beyond the Gospels, doesn't Paul call them a curse? Yeah, Per Rabbi Hirsch, they're not Jewish no more.

Regarding smoke and mirrors: it's no one's fault the scheme didn't work. just be a good person ( that includes avoiding intentional falsehood ).

Paul calls Christ "the Circumcision" and all who are in Christ "the Circumcision," implying that they're no longer bound by titles like "Jew" or "Gentile." They can no longer stride or strut because of their faithfulness to the Law since it has nothing to do with them in that they're circumcised from the staff and tribal affiliations that the Law, particularly in its physical analogue, establishes, and thus has power over.

wow, you're really fixated on this striding and strutting thing. The text says what it says. That doesn't mean Jewish people take it to that level.

 

[dybmh]

Some Jewish midrashim note that the tree of knowledge grows from the same root as the tree of life

true, some say that

and winds itself around the tree of life

bring the story, without the details I'm kinda like.... yeah right

like the Torah text is wound around a branch literally called the tree of life

yup, the tree of life, not branch. You're doing it again. A tree is not a branch.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to begin to see the burning bush, and its analogue, Nehushtan, as intimately related to this idea of the tree of knowledge as a serpentine scion growing out of the same root as the tree of life and winding itself so tightly around the tree of life that you'd have to remove this flashy serpent-skinned fore skene even to realize the tree of life is beneath.

You don't like the Torah. Understandable.

The answer given is that when the Israelites raised their eyes to Hashem they were healed. . . when the people looked at the serpent at the top of the pole and held the thought that Hashem alone could cause a wound or its healing, then the healing soon followed.

The Call of the Torah, Ellie Munk.

I wonder what it says between the "..." the part you omitted. There's probably plenty in the book that refutes your theology. But yes, the idea is, first they look up to the infinite God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, ( not your hashem ), and then look down to the Nehushtan, the Jew immediately can see the difference, and their faith restored, healing commences.

 

[River Sea]

As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifted up

Would this also apply if Moses came from Indus Valley? What is a serpent?

I apologize but I don't understand the first question and the second seems odd at best.
John

I'll explain more: Hebrews Yadavas lived in Indus Valley where the Pharaohs lived. Then Moses Krishna led the Hebrews Yadavas from Indus Valley to Yisrael

I was wondering what your thoughts, what a serpent is?

Snake represents the spinal cord in hindu psychoLogy.