Kashering Christianity So A Jew Can Swallow It.

[John D. Brey]

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

Though it probably wouldn't interest you too much, your statement addresses some important anthropological and theological nuances.

In the ancient world every firstborn, regardless of the tribe, was conceived through the jus primae noctis of the clan god/founder. When a maiden married a member of the clan, she first went into the temple where a bronze phallic emblem of the clan god/founder had been prepared for her by being "anointed" with oil so that the ordeal would be less painful and more salubrious. Since her firstborn was, at least symbolically, conceived in this manner, he was called the "anointed" one, or son: the son conceived of the anointed phallus of the clan deity.

After the golden calf fiasco, Israel's clan deity chose not to practice jus primae noctis with all the clan members, all the brides of all the tribes. According to the narrative come down to us, the priests, the anointed ones, would all come from one tribe, Levi, giving us a giant clue to a fundamental adaptation of pagan precedent as it comes through Jewish symbolism and ritual.

Part and parcel of this giant clue is the fact that Jesus of Nazareth, adopted by many Jews as the "anointed" one, the firstborn of the clan god/founder, isn't even born to the one tribe the clan founder selected to father his sons, his anointed ones, his priests?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

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

Even as Jews are not supposed to marry their semen to non-Jewish woman, so too they're commanded not to marry their semes, their words, thoughts, culture, to non-Jewish words, thoughts, culture.

And yet this anti-Semeism, ironically practiced by Jews, creates the very problem this thread has been spinning its wheels going nowhere to describe, circumscribe, and then cut off (circumcise).



John

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Why do Jews need to "swallow" anything? Jesus was born a Jew and God said the Jews were His people. Maybe it is Christians that need to swallow a few facts.

 

[John D. Brey]

Even as Jews are not supposed to marry their semen to non-Jewish woman, so too they're commanded not to marry their semes, their words, thoughts, culture, to non-Jewish words, thoughts, culture.

And yet this anti-Semeism, ironically practiced by Jews, creates the very problem this thread has been spinning its wheels going nowhere to describe, circumscribe, and then cut off (circumcise).

The concept of racial purity associated with not interbreeding with non-Jews (Rabbi Hirsch makes it perfectly clear that this prohibition implicitly implicates Jews as a separate species from non-Jews) implies that either Jewish genes didn't come from the Gentile genes that came before them (Abram was to all accounts a Gentile at birth), or else the Jewish god provided a mechanism for cleansing Jewish genes of the problem found in non-Jewish genes.

The fact that the founding ritual of Judaism is bleeding the phallus seems to give a picture of what the problem of Gentile genes is that's so clear that we could only think of Judaism and the Jews as being blinded by the light of their founding ritual except for the fact that their clan founder, their god, prohibited them from associating metzitzah (the final act of the founding ritual) with the one verse (John 6:53) that brings its purpose into the full light of day. In other words he prohibited them from drinking, metabolizing, the very life-blood of their Jewish rituals, that would allow them to know their past, present, and future, to a degree which might actually be beyond the ken of their clan founder (1 Peter 1:10-12.).



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Why do Jews need to "swallow" anything? Jesus was born a Jew and God said the Jews were His people. Maybe it is Christians that need to swallow a few facts.

Amen. I'm looking for as many to swallow as I can.

You say Jesus was born a Jew? What's the facts associated with that statement as you used it? In other words, what was the nature of his birth such that he's considered a "Jew" while I am not?

I'll throw out one little fact about that. According to Jewish law the father can be non-Jewish without that affecting the Jewish-ness of the son so long as the mother is Jewish. We should like to know, in a factual manner, what a Jewish woman's womb adds to the pregnancy such that the child is Jewish regardless of whom or what the father is? In other words, wouldn't making the father irrelevant seem just too perfectly situated around the founding ritual of Judaism (gathering to watch a male member bled to death, i.e., brit milah)?

Btw, if the father is Jewish, and the mother is not, the son is not Jewish according to Jewish law. The father, and symbolically his male member, is cut out of the process of conceiving a Jew. Which, again, makes the founding ritual (brit milah) actually make sense.

. . . Which segues into the very life-blood of this thread. I.e., why doesn't the clear significance of the sign of Jewish identity (a giant scar on a male member) make any sense to Jews?



John

 

[Brickjectivity]

In the ancient world every firstborn, regardless of the tribe, was conceived through the jus primae noctis of the clan god/founder. When a maiden married a member of the clan, she first went into the temple where a bronze phallic emblem of the clan god/founder had been prepared for her by being "anointed" with oil so that the ordeal would be less painful and more salubrious. Since her firstborn was, at least symbolically, conceived in this manner, he was called the "anointed" one, or son: the son conceived of the anointed phallus of the clan deity.

After the golden calf fiasco, Israel's clan deity chose not to practice jus primae noctis with all the clan members, all the brides of all the tribes. According to the narrative come down to us, the priests, the anointed ones, would all come from one tribe, Levi, giving us a giant clue to a fundamental adaptation of pagan precedent as it comes through Jewish symbolism and ritual.

Early dynasties sometimes had that the king should impregnate the virgins, and that seems to be related to what you are saying. Now...maybe some people used a dildo instead; but imagine that you believe in breeding and that the king is your strongest and best. Then its not too far to leap to the conclusion that he should breed with all of the girls, especially if the decision is his to make. This could confer special favor upon families that have the kings child, too...and so forth.

The Jews don't believe the firstborn is special ever. They seem not to believe in special genetic lines. Take Abraham's story as any indication (which comes before the Exodus or the golden calf incident) since the firstborn always loses their place starting with him. Abram's older brother, Nahor, is not chosen by the LORD. Then his firstborn son is not chosen. Then Isaac's firstborn is not chosen. Then Jacob's firstborn is not chosen. Then there are further examples. David, Jesse's 14th son is the first king. If the stories are chronological then Jews leave behind the practices of other nations long before the golden calf. That is 'If'.

Part and parcel of this giant clue is the fact that Jesus of Nazareth, adopted by many Jews as the "anointed" one, the firstborn of the clan god/founder, isn't even born to the one tribe the clan founder selected to father his sons, his anointed ones, his priests?

It is a mistake I think to relate the Jewish concept of anointing with that of surrounding nations. Whatever they loath about other nations they'll take and use in a different way; and this may have nothing to do with the golden calf. Anointing could just be another way that the Jews say "No we don't like what you are doing. Its wrong, so our anointing will be something other than your concept entirely." The priests, unlike other nations, are not the firstborn sons. They're from a tribe that is completely disinherited except for some towns. They're not allowed to own land permanently (completely opposite of Egyptian priests who own everything), and while they do have a line of father to son they aren't genetically constrained. They can adopt I think, although that may not be something I can verify. What I'm mainly saying is that just become other cultures may have had this practice with the brass dildo doesn't mean the Jewish ancestors ever did. The annointing is partly described in scripture. Oil is poured over the man who is being annointed. It says nothing about any sexual practice.

The concept of racial purity associated with not interbreeding with non-Jews (Rabbi Hirsch makes it perfectly clear that this prohibition implicitly implicates Jews as a separate species from non-Jews) implies that either Jewish genes didn't come from the Gentile genes that came before them (Abram was to all accounts a Gentile at birth), or else the Jewish god provided a mechanism for cleansing Jewish genes of the problem found in non-Jewish genes.

The whole problem that Jews had in Germany was that they favored mixed breeding, people of all kinds represented by the 12 different gemstones on the priests and the four directions of the tribes arranged around the tabernacle. Breeding was something the Chinese and the Egyptians believed in. Not Jews.

The fact that the founding ritual of Judaism is bleeding the phallus seems to give a picture of what the problem of Gentile genes is that's so clear that we could only think of Judaism and the Jews as being blinded by the light of their founding ritual except for the fact that their clan founder, their god, prohibited them from associating metzitzah (the final act of the founding ritual) with the one verse (John 6:53) that brings its purpose into the full light of day. In other words he prohibited them from drinking, metabolizing, the very life-blood of their Jewish rituals, that would allow them to know their past, present, and future, to a degree which might actually be beyond the ken of their clan founder (1 Peter 1:10-12.).

Its not 'Bleeding the phallus' its circumcision, and it pertains to removing pride the cause of anger. The heart must also be circumcised. Its got nothing to do with breeding.

 

[John D. Brey]

Early dynasties sometimes had that the king should impregnate the virgins, and that seems to be related to what you are saying. Now...maybe some people used a dildo instead; but imagine that you believe in breeding and that the king is your strongest and best. Then its not too far to leap to the conclusion that he should breed with all of the girls, especially if the decision is his to make. This could confer special favor upon families that have the kings child, too...and so forth.

Naturally if the king is also the tribal deity that special favor is special indeed. Each family in the clan was delighted to have one son, the first, related to the clan deity.

The Jews don't believe the firstborn is special ever.

And yet the firstborn of the father inherits a double portion of the father's possessions, and the firstborn of the mother inherits the covenant. Which is to say that there are two distinctive firstborn distinguished by whether you're your father's firstborn or you mother's first born and in most cases both. In Jewish law, the father's firstborn בכור לנחלה inherits, through law, a double portion of his father's possessions. While a firstborn of the mother ב׳ לכהן, the "womb-opener," פטר רחם, inherits the covenant.

They seem not to believe in special genetic lines.

It seems to me that they do. It's just that the special part passes matriarchally rather than patriarchally.

Take Abraham's story as any indication (which comes before the Exodus or the golden calf incident) since the firstborn always loses their place starting with him. Abram's older brother, Nahor, is not chosen by the LORD. Then his firstborn son is not chosen. Then Isaac's firstborn is not chosen. Then Jacob's firstborn is not chosen. Then there are further examples. David, Jesse's 14th son is the first king. If the stories are chronological then Jews leave behind the practices of other nations long before the golden calf.

This is strange. But in my opinion it's an oddity begging for an answer but which is not based on any lawful predicate.

It is a mistake I think to relate the Jewish concept of anointing with that of surrounding nations.
Whatever they loath about other nations they'll take and use in a different way; and this may have nothing to do with the golden calf. Anointing could just be another way that the Jews say "No we don't like what you are doing. Its wrong, so our anointing will be something other than your concept entirely." The priests, unlike other nations, are not the firstborn sons. They're from a tribe that is completely disinherited except for some towns. They're not allowed to own land permanently (completely opposite of Egyptian priests who own everything), and while they do have a line of father to son they aren't genetically constrained. They can adopt I think, although that may not be something I can verify. What I'm mainly saying is that just become other cultures may have had this practice with the brass dildo doesn't mean the Jewish ancestors ever did. The annointing is partly described in scripture. Oil is poured over the man who is being annointed. It says nothing about any sexual practice.

This is kinda where the dogma thing comes in. I've studied the etymology of the Hebrew words and rituals for a long time and I see, for my eyes, direct parallels to the pagan practices. They are no doubt covered up where possible but the scribes and their Masoretic text. But a serious exegete can uncover them fairly easily.

Take Exodus 13:2, for instance. The clan deity says to sanctify unto him all the firstborn who open the womb among the children of Israel for they belong to the clan deity in a direct manner different from those who don't "open the womb."

Only a virgin has a womb/vagina whose veil, hymen, remains intact even when a son conceive by God is inside gestating since the serpent hasn't torn that veil in the act of conceiving what is conceived by God apart from genital stimulation and, in the case of the female, mutilation (tearing the hymen).

The bronze serpent (phallus) Nehushtan is placed in the most holy place of the temple representing for the Jews, what the bronze member of the pagan's deity represents. For that reason Hezekiah took it out of the most holy place and destroyed it in the same manner it's destroyed ritually on the eighth day, when, according to Rabbi Hirsch, a Jew is born again from a conception event not related to the night, nor the nocturnal habits of the human serpent.

The whole problem that Jews had in Germany was that they favored mixed breeding, people of all kinds represented by the 12 different gemstones on the priests . . .

The 12 different gemstones represent the 12 tribes of Israel.

Its not 'Bleeding the phallus' its circumcision . . .

As any practicing orthodox Jew with a modicum of knowledge will tell you, the blood is the single most important symbol in the ritual circumcision.

As another practicing orthodox Jew with a modicum of knowledge will tell you, circumcision is a ritual sacrifice. And if we ever get around to a quorum of practicing orthodox Jews we might learn that in every single case of Jewish sacrifice, if blood is drawn, the flesh where it's draw never survives the ordeal.

Blood is drawn from the phallus in brit milah. The nocturnal flesh that conceives genital, Gentile, flesh, doesn't survive brit milah. Which is cause for celebration not a downcast or dejected demeanor made all the meaner because the nocturnal serpent won't be pridefully carousing around the streets and bars after the bris cuts the sad truth of faux-masculinity right down to the bone.



John

 

[Brickjectivity]

And yet the firstborn of the father inherits a double portion of the father's possessions, and the firstborn of the mother inherits the covenant. Which is to say that there are two distinctive firstborn distinguished by whether you're your father's firstborn or you mother's first born and in most cases both. In Jewish law, the father's firstborn בכור לנחלה inherits, through law, a double portion of his father's possessions.

The oldest son inherits more. This favors not just the son but the first wife, the wife most likely to be divorced later on. That goes along with the law preventing a later son from taking away what the older son has. Just as in the story of Joseph, Jacob's favorite son, and in the story of Esau Isaac's favorite son, men can be very unfair to sons particular when multiple wives are involved.

It seems to me that they do. It's just that the special part passes matriarchally rather than patriarchally.

Your invention I think. Both men and women become naturalized Jews and then have Jewish children. The book Ruth is an example of how this can work theoretically, and the genealogy of King David has Ruth the Moabite in it. The surrounding nations, however, heavily focus on breeding. This could explain why Judaism rejects breeding.

This is kinda where the dogma thing comes in. I've studied the etymology of the Hebrew words and rituals for a long time and I see, for my eyes, direct parallels to the pagan practices. They are no doubt covered up where possible but the scribes and their Masoretic text. But a serious exegete can uncover them fairly easily.

Take Exodus 13:2, for instance. The clan deity says to sanctify unto him all the firstborn who open the womb among the children of Israel for they belong to the clan deity in a direct manner different from those who don't "open the womb."

When you read the Shema Israel you are reading a covenant, and therefore it seems LORD is a covenant not a clan deity in the sense of an Egyptian deity or Etruscan or Norse. That is not a secret just not something people talk about in church. The oppressing and the pillaging nations like Egypt and Assyria had such clan deities that gave them permission or required them to pillage. I don't know about them, but I think LORD is covenant not some guy with a penis.

Etymology can be a trap. There was a fellow who thought he had disproved the Trojan war by studying the etymology of words. You can only learn so much that way.

The 12 different gemstones represent the 12 tribes of Israel.

Each stone is different, and each one is favored. They all have a place.

As any practicing orthodox Jew with a modicum of knowledge will tell you, the blood is the single most important symbol in the ritual circumcision.

As if they'd explain to me what is none of my business.

As another practicing orthodox Jew with a modicum of knowledge will tell you, circumcision is a ritual sacrifice. And if we ever get around to a quorum of practicing orthodox Jews we might learn that in every single case of Jewish sacrifice, if blood is drawn, the flesh where it's draw never survives the ordeal.

It is a sign of a covenant. That's what the scripture says, but its not described in Leviticus with the other sacrifices.