1. 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!

Featured Shoa of the Yid of God.

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by John D. Brey, Nov 19, 2022.

  1. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,438
    Ratings:
    +544
    Religion:
    Christian
    Circumcision is not simply an incision of the male sex organ; it is an inscription, a notation, a marking. This marking, in turn, is the semiological seal, as it were, that represents the divine imprint on the human body. The physical opening, therefore, is the seal that, in its symbolic valence, corresponds to an ontological opening within God. . . The opening of circumcision, in the final analysis, is transformed in the Zohar into a symbol for the task of exegesis. . . The uncovering of the phallus is conceptually and structurally parallel to the disclosure of the text.

    Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, The Circle in the Square, p, 30.

    One is said to see the Holy One from the sign of the covenant inscribed in one's flesh, the letter yod. As we have seen, in the case of the Zohar the letter yod is not understood simply as a sign of the covenant between God and Israel but is the very sign of the Holy One himself. . . Here we meet a convergence of anthropomorphic and letter symbolism: the physical organ in its essential character is interchangeable with the letter, and the letter with the physical organ.

    Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation: From Midrashic Trope to Mystical Symbol.
    These two brilliant quotations began a thread here ten years ago called, Tetragrammaton in the Flesh. It's difficult to imagine two quotations that better circumscribe the kabbalistic concept of ritual circumcision even as they lend themselves to the currently extant thread, Taanit 5b in the Medieval Imagination, of which this thread is a temporary side excursion.



    John
     
    #1 John D. Brey, Nov 19, 2022
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2022
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,438
    Ratings:
    +544
    Religion:
    Christian
    While examining texts by Professor Gershom Scholem in order to address a question posed in the thread of which this thread is a side-excursion (Taanit 5b in the Medieval Imagination) I came upon a quotation from Scholem's, Kabbalah, that I couldn't resist examining in more detail since it will lend itself to the seeder thread noted above if that thread ever manages to bring its offspring through the sealed-membrane as required for broader revelation.

    The sudden discovery of an esoteric Jewish tradition that had hitherto been completely unknown caused a sensation in the Christian intellectual world . . . Human history, Reuchlin argued, could be divided into three periods. In the first or natural period, God revealed himself to the patriarchs though the three-lettered name of Shaddai (שדי). In the period of the Torah He revealed Himself to Moses through the four-lettered name of the Tetragammaton. But in the period of grace and redemption He revealed Himself through the five letters, namely, the Tetragrammaton with the addition of the letter shin, signifying the Logos, thus spelling Yehoshua יהושה or Jesus. In the name of Jesus, which is the true Miraculous Name, the formerly hidden name of God now became pronounceable.

    Scholem, Kabbalah, p. 198.​



    John
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,438
    Ratings:
    +544
    Religion:
    Christian
    Before getting too far ahead of the game, the name of the thread, The Shoa of the Yid of God, is a play on Professor Wolfson's noting that the yod is the literal mark of God in the flesh of the Yid of God (the righteous Jew), who, is often spoken of as a "yid" in a pejorative manner when he's undergoing a shoah, or is crying שוע to his God for help during a shoah.

    The Christian kabbalists didn't just note the evolution of the three-lettered name of God שדי, to the four יהוה, and finalize it with the five-lettered name יהושה, as noted by Scholem. They also connected Yehoshua יהושה to the Hebrew word for "salvation" ישועה making the five-lettered God the God of the final redemption or salvation: Yeshua.



    John
     
    #3 John D. Brey, Nov 19, 2022
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2022
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,438
    Ratings:
    +544
    Religion:
    Christian
    The ironic point of seeing Yeshua as the God of the final redemption/salvation -----and seeing it as the final progression of divine names -----is the irony that any Hebrew student has probably already noticed, i.e., the fact that Yeshua ישועה, in Hebrew, forms two other words.

    Remove the "cry" שוע of the righteous one (Isaiah 49:14) from Yeshua י–שוע–ה, and the remaining two letters, יה, spell an abbreviation of the Tetragrammaton, Yah יה. Yeshua is the God of the Tetragrammaton at the final redemption such that his crying out שוע (Isaiah 49:14; Psalms 22:1; Matthew 27:46) is part and parcel of the shoah he undergoes to purchase the final redemption of the saints.

    And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a load voice saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, that is to say, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

    Matthew 27:46.​

    In this nomenclature, Jesus, i.e., Yeshua ישועה, is Yah of the salvific-Shoa י–שוע–ה (Matt. 27:46). Yeshua is Ya-of-the-Shoa; Yahweh of the salvific-Shoa: the cry of the suffering-salvificant ישועה.



    John
     
    #4 John D. Brey, Nov 19, 2022
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2022
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    11,511
    Ratings:
    +8,286
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I reassert these need citations. Lacking them, I'm going through the Zohar myself looking at anything mentioning cicumcision. Nothing so far even remotely suggests these conclusions.

    Also, it doesn't make logical sense to apply ritual cicumcision to exegesis. The Zohar would not describe Torah as needing the impurity removed.
     
  6. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    11,511
    Ratings:
    +8,286
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Which according to Zohar hasn't happened yet...
     
  7. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,438
    Ratings:
    +544
    Religion:
    Christian
    Woe to the sinners who look upon the Torah as simply tales pertaining to things of the world, seeing thus only the outer garment. But the righteous whose gaze penetrates to the very Torah, happy are they. Just as wine must be in a jar to keep, so the Torah must be contained in an outer garment. That garment is made up of tales and stories; but we, we are bound to penetrate beyond.​

    If I were so arrogant as to speak for the writers of the Zohar I'd say that they're fine with the un-righteous reading the Torah as stories that pertaineth to the things of the world. But if one of these un-righteous readers protesteth that the things of the world is all the Torah can possibly speak of for all else is sound and fury signifying nothing, well . . . then the outer garment of the Torah that guards the deeper things becomes, in the hands of the simple reader, an impurity, rather than a guardian, since he's using that reading as the true source of life, rather than as the mere foliage, or fore-skene, guarding what lies, in truth, beneath.

    It's like someone eating the skin of an apple and denying that there's anything else edible beneath it. More seminally stated, it's like giving birth to flesh on the first day, and claiming that when that flesh is bled on the eighth, it's merely symbolic, i.e., that there's no true spiritual life born on the eighth day that's the true fruit of human existence hidden beneath the fleshly skin (Genesis 3:21).



    John
     
    #7 John D. Brey, Nov 20, 2022
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2022
  8. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,438
    Ratings:
    +544
    Religion:
    Christian
    This segues into my question to you about how you read the Talmudic spoiler you posted in the other thread:

    The meeting place of the Sages will become a place of promiscuity, and the Galilee shall be destroyed,

    Jesus is related to two particular cities, Nazareth, and Galilee. He's actually called "Jesus of Galilee" in the Gospels and Apostolic Writings. The Talmudic passage you posted (without referencing it, the link didn't work. I assume it's Sotah 49b:2) is speaking of the messianic-times, the time of redemption/salvation, and speaking of this time by noting Galilee shall be destroyed.

    The Chazal are no doubt thinking of the "secret" thing Isaiah revealed (48:6, and see Mark 1:9) throughout deutero-Isaiah. In chapter 8, speaking of the waywardness of Israel, God claims that for both houses of Israel the Lord of Hosts will become a stone that causes men to stumble (8:14). Nevertheless, it's what the prophet Isaiah says later in the chapter that's in the cross-hairs of the Talmudic passage you posted. The prophet says that though the Lord is "hiding his face from the house of Jacob" (8:17), nevertheless, on the other hand, he will honor "Galilee of the Gentiles" (9:1)?

    "Who's this so-called Galilee of the Gentiles"?

    Isaiah tells us in the next verse:

    The people that formerly walked in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.​

    The people formerly walking in darkness are the Gentiles of the Galilean. But now a light has shown on them. The "land of the shadow of death" is a double-entendre: it speaks of Gentile lands in particular, and specifically of the gravestones where a particular "shadow" covers the raised earth.

    In Medieval times, Jews were warned that if the shadow come from a cross on a nearby cathedral cast itself through their window, the Jew was to board up that window, for it's the shadow of the Gentile's Galilean, and they, the Gentiles, literally post it over their graves so that knowing they're the people of the shadow of death, that shadow, emblematic of a particular death, of the Galilean, becomes their gravestone. It's the gravestone (the foundation-stone of the resurrection) that the builders of the temple (both houses of Israel) rejected. But it becomes, for the Gentiles of the Galilean, the cornerstone, or gravestone, the very foundation of their appeal to the light of resurrection associated with messianic-times.



    John
     
    #8 John D. Brey, Nov 20, 2022
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2022
  9. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,438
    Ratings:
    +544
    Religion:
    Christian
    The original reply to Sotah 49b:2 (above) merely scratches the surface of what the text it refers to (Isaiah 9:1) has to say about the matter since to know that (i.e., the meaning of Isaiah 9:1), a person must also know that Isaiah 9:1 is a parallel of Isaiah 48:18-19. Exegeting Isaiah 48:19, Ibn Ezra says:

    Thy seed. The number of thy children. במנך=מעיך Thy womb. במעותיו As its bowels. The possessive pronoun refers to the sea, the waves and sand of which have just been mentioned (ver. 18 and 19); by "the bowels of the sea" the roe of a fish is meant. His name. The name of thy seed.​

    Ibn Ezra's genius is so concise in the passage above as to go unnoticed by anyone not already aware of the brilliance of his exegetical mind. What he does with the passage above is breathtaking. And particularly in the way he subconsciously ignores, covers up, the very light he's producing in his exegesis.

    Thy seed would have been as the sand of the sea.

    Isaiah 48:19.​

    Ibn Ezra makes clear that Israel's righteous seed would have been like the sand of the sea. The "sand of the sea" is being compared to offspring (seed) from the sea. But in the previous verse, the sea in question is no generic sea as might be supposed, but the sea of Galilee. Israel's offspring, were she righteous, would be as numerous as the Galilean's, or the offspring of the man from Galilee.

    The Masoretic "waves of the sea" (48:18) is a hapax; it's the only place in the entire bible that these consonants appear. Elsewhere, a Hebrew word other than גל is used for "waves" whenever the noun for sea ים is part of the phrase. Without the Masoretic prejudice, the word in Isaiah can read not the "waves of the sea" but with the consonants combined, "the Galileans" as the root implies גללים. If not for Israel's unrighteousness her offspring would be as numerous as the offspring of the Galilean; her offspring would be the Galileans.

    And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

    Matthew 21:11.​



    John
     
    #9 John D. Brey, Nov 20, 2022
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2022
  10. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,438
    Ratings:
    +544
    Religion:
    Christian
    Ibn Ezra says that by " the bowels of the sea," the roe, that is "seed," of a fish is implied, thereby suggesting that it's speaking of the Galileans since the Galileans were directly associated with symbol of a fish: ichthys <><. The "sands of the sea" are the offspring ("seed") of the fish <>< who grossly outnumber wayward Israel. Ichthy's is an acronym for, ησοῦς Χρῑστός Θεοῦ Υἱός Σωτήρ, which in English is, "Jesus Christ God's Son Savior." The "seed of the fish" <>< is then, the offspring of Jesus the Galilean from Nazareth.



    John
     
    #10 John D. Brey, Nov 20, 2022
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2022
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  11. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    11,511
    Ratings:
    +8,286
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Have you read the entire passage? Is your translation correct? How's your aramaic?

    Sefaria has the entire passage: Zohar 3:152a:3

    If you read it carefully it refutes Prof Wolfson's analogy of exegesis as circumcision.

    At the beginning of the passage Rabbi Shimon says: "כָּל מִלִּין דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא, מִלִּין עִלָּאִין אִינּוּן" "all the words of the Torah are sublime". And at the end of the passage says: "כַּךְ אוֹרַיְיתָא לָא יְתִיב אֶלָּא בִּלְבוּשָׁא דָּא" "So Torah cannot abide except in this garment."

    So, no, nothing in the Torah can be compared to foreskin.
     
  12. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    11,511
    Ratings:
    +8,286
    Religion:
    Judaism
    " no doubt " ??? Come on.
     
  13. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    11,511
    Ratings:
    +8,286
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Ummm. I think you need to check the Hebrew of 48:18.

    ל֥וּא הִקְשַׁ֖בְתָּ לְמִצְו‍ֹתָ֑י וַיְהִ֚י כַנָּהָר֙ שְׁלוֹמֶ֔ךָ וְצִדְקָֽתְךָ֖ כְּגַלֵּ֥י הַיָּֽם


    With the consonants combined you have גליהים not גללים. So you're adding and removing letters AND spaces.

    And to connection between Isaiah 9:1 and Isaiah 48:8-9 is well.... creative.
     
  14. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,438
    Ratings:
    +544
    Religion:
    Christian
    במנך=מעיך Thy womb. במעותיו As its bowels. ​

    Ibn Ezra doesn't propound just to try to be profound. His statement are always concise. His statement above circumscribes a serious textual problem since the text appears to use the same word back to back. The word מציך translated "bowels" in the KJV is repeated, declined as, במצותיו. The KJV interprets the first as "bowels" and the second as "gravel." Ibn Ezra implies that the first, מעיך is Thy womb, and the second, is "its bowels" במעותיו. Ibn Ezra implies the "bowels of thy womb" speaks of the seed of the fish in the sea. As Keil and Delitzsch point out, Ibn Ezra's exegesis only exemplifies the problem of the text:

    The play upon the words in כמעותיו מעי ך is very conspicuous. Many expositors (e.g., Rashi, Gesenius, Hitzig, and Knobel) regard מעות as synonymous with מעי ם , and therefore as signifying the viscera, i.e., the beings that fill the heart of the sea; but it is much more natural to suppose that the suffix points back to chōl . Moreover, no such metaphorical use of viscera can be pointed out; and since in other instances the feminine plural (such as k e nâphōth , q e rânōth ) denotes that which is artificial as distinguished from what is natural, it is impossible to see why the interior of the sea, which is elsewhere called lēbh ( l e bhabh , the heart), and indirectly also beten , should be called מעות instead of מעים . To all appearance מעותיו signifies the grains of sand (lxx, Jerome, Targ.); and this is confirmed by the fact that מעא (Neo-Heb. מעה numulus ) is the Targum word for גּרה , and the Semitic root מע , related to &#מג מק , melted, dissolved, signifies to be soft or tender.​



    John
     
  15. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,438
    Ratings:
    +544
    Religion:
    Christian
    I stand corrected. I should have implied that they may have been thinking consciously or subconsciously of things they know are in the Hebrew text.



    John
     
  16. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,438
    Ratings:
    +544
    Religion:
    Christian
    There are no spaces on the signature text. Spaces are part of the Masoretic treatment of the text. Same with vowel points. Furthermore, alef, heh, vav, and yod, are used as consonantal vowels. The Masoretic text actually adds these letters as vowel letters in certain cases.

    In the text in question, I took the root words גלל and ים an put them together without a space. As noted, there's no other place in the bible where "waves of the sea" use the consonants גל. The other two places where "waves of the sea" are found the text use במה ים, and משבר ים.

    There's a lot of things going on in this text. And there's a lot at stake concerning what's being said. There are some "creative" interpretations that use scripture to interpret scripture that reveal a cohesiveness to these concepts that can only point to Isaiah as not just a prophet, but an oracle; the later being something like what today is called a "remote viewer": someone who actually sees the future (ala John's Revelation) rather than merely making prophetic pronouncements that are often extremely parabolic.



    John
     
    #16 John D. Brey, Nov 20, 2022
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2022
  17. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,438
    Ratings:
    +544
    Religion:
    Christian
    Scroll down a bit further. :D

    Therefore the story of the Torah constitutes its garment. He who thinks that the garment is actually the Torah and and not something else, let his spirit deflate and let him have no portion in the world-to-come.​

    I'm not a Jewish sage, but I once played one in a sit com. Not really. But if I were a Jewish sage, I'd add that it's the uncircumcised who have no portion in the world-to-come. And also that there's a natural relationship between the man whose scroll isn't circumcised, and his thinking that the outer covering of the Torah scroll, its outer garment (the mundane stories) is actually the Torah, and not something else: a fore-skene used to sate him whose spirit will deflate for having confused the outer-skin of the Torah scroll---knowledge---for the fruit of Torah that's hiding beneath.



    John
     
    #17 John D. Brey, Nov 20, 2022
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2022
  18. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    11,511
    Ratings:
    +8,286
    Religion:
    Judaism
    "Would have been" does not appear to be correct translation. Compare to the Gen 1 the creation story. Same word "וַיְהִ֤י". Using "would have been" would render:

    3And God said, "Let there be light," and there would have been light.
    7And God made the expanse and it separated between the water that was below the expanse and the water that was above the expanse, and it would have been so.
    9And God said, "Let the water that is beneath the heavens gather into one place, and let the dry land appear," and it would have been so.
    etc...

    So you see, Ibn Ezra does not make it clear that anyone "would have been" anything.

    A better translation appears to be "would be".
     
  19. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,438
    Ratings:
    +544
    Religion:
    Christian
    Not perfectly clear what you're implying. Verse 18 says (KJV): O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! Then had they peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea.

    Are you denying that the text is implying that Israel lost out on peace as a river, and righteousness as waves of the sea, because they didn't hearken to God's commandments?

    Fwiw, the Zohar says that the correct interpretation of Genesis is that God said let there be light, and the light was already there. The sages imply something concerning is going on beneath the garment of that text. Rashi concurs in the sense that he wonders out loud why Gevurah (the judge, jury and executioner) rather than Hesed (Hashem) is said to be doing the work in Genesis one.



    John
     
  20. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    11,511
    Ratings:
    +8,286
    Religion:
    Judaism
    1) Source on 'masoretic text adds these letters', please.
    2) You forgot about the lamed
    you're adding a lamed to the text though.
    think if it this way, in order to make an illicit change to the text by the masoretes, and keep it secret the change would have to be small. each change makes it more conspicuous, and thus, less likely to occur without getting caught.

    Before you made it sound like the *only* thing you did was smoosh the letters together and presto, there's the word you want. Something so insignificant maybe wouldn't be noticed.

    Anyways, even if the space is irrelevent, you're still removing a Hei, and adding a Lamed, and then you get the word you want. That's a bit more than you originally said, and I think that makes it less likely to have occured undetected.
    It's poetry, one needs to guard against reading things into the text which aren't there.
     
Loading...