John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
In Galatians 3:28, Paul deconstructs not only gender-duality, or in the context of the previous threads in this series, bi-gendered gender, but he also sneaks in a somewhat theologically disturbing nuance of his deconstruction of gender when he claims that just as the bi-gendered species is on its way out with the birth and death of Christ, so to is the distinction between the Gentile and the Jew on its way out in the body of Christ.
The previous two threads on this subject revealed an exegetical gem/prism that releases a new reading of Paul in Galatians 3:28. The previous threads pointed out that the so-called male, i.e., the gender thought of as male in scientific and Jewish orthodoxy, is actually nothing of the sort. It's merely a half-way point, maybe even a retroactive doppelganger, of the singular male who must exist before you can have a true Duke's mixture of male and female. In other words, as noted already in the previous threads, before the female ovum can transform from female flesh into male flesh, you need to have male flesh that's not firstly female flesh, or else your alleged male is really a masculine, a phallic, female.
What is fancied a "male" today is merely a masculinized, phallicized, female, since in the transformation that takes place in the womb, the embryo clearly transitions from female, with labial flesh, and genital opening, to the stage known as the primordial phallus, eventually arriving at the closing of the vulva, and its covering up by the foreskin of the phallus. You clearly have a female in male clothing. At best you have the cross-dressing female that made the virgin birth and the cross necessary.
John
There is neither Jew nor Gentile . . . neither male nor female: for you are all unified in Christ Jesus.
The previous two threads on this subject revealed an exegetical gem/prism that releases a new reading of Paul in Galatians 3:28. The previous threads pointed out that the so-called male, i.e., the gender thought of as male in scientific and Jewish orthodoxy, is actually nothing of the sort. It's merely a half-way point, maybe even a retroactive doppelganger, of the singular male who must exist before you can have a true Duke's mixture of male and female. In other words, as noted already in the previous threads, before the female ovum can transform from female flesh into male flesh, you need to have male flesh that's not firstly female flesh, or else your alleged male is really a masculine, a phallic, female.
What is fancied a "male" today is merely a masculinized, phallicized, female, since in the transformation that takes place in the womb, the embryo clearly transitions from female, with labial flesh, and genital opening, to the stage known as the primordial phallus, eventually arriving at the closing of the vulva, and its covering up by the foreskin of the phallus. You clearly have a female in male clothing. At best you have the cross-dressing female that made the virgin birth and the cross necessary.
John