johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2013 John D. Brey.
But this is the encounter of the transcendent God with his
feminine immanence; it is the encounter of Keter and Shekinah, of God and soul,
of man and world, which takes place in the inner reality of every living
couple.
Erich
Neumann, Art and the Creative
Unconscious, p.141.
Jewish birth is dictated exclusively by women.
According to Jewish law the man is "cut" out of the determination of
who is or isn’t a Jew by birth. Yet if someone desires to become a Jew through
conversion they’re likely to be told that they cannot become a Jew unless
they’re converted by the very men who are cut out of the determination of who
is or isn't a Jew by birth. The rebellious Christian might say bull. . . “I’m a
Jew through conversion. And the male who converted me didn't even posses the
organ which is only ritually scathed on the men who would typically dictate if
I’m a good Jew through conversion.”
See my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and
highly exalted. As many were astonished at thee; His visage was so marred more
than any man, And his form more than the sons of men: so will he sprinkle many
nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
Commentators have wondered
about the statement that his appearance was disfigured beyond that of any man.
On the surface it seems absurd. But they're interpreting a Hebrew idiom
literally. The Suffering Servant was marred greatly through his scourging, no
doubt; but not beyond that of any man. There were men in many gladiatorial
arenas who were marred by animals worse than the Suffering Servant was marred
by the scourge of the Roman whip. There were probably other Roman prisoners who
were scourged, and marred, worse than Jesus of Nazareth.
Properly interpreted in its idiomatic form, Isaiah 52:14 says that the Servant of the Lord was marred such that he could no longer be considered a man. His marring was of a specific kind. He no longer wore the symbol of a son of man. He was emasculated and hung naked on a cross creating a major stir at the time of his crucifixion.
Properly interpreted in its idiomatic form, Isaiah 52:14 says that the Servant of the Lord was marred such that he could no longer be considered a man. His marring was of a specific kind. He no longer wore the symbol of a son of man. He was emasculated and hung naked on a cross creating a major stir at the time of his crucifixion.
"How marred is his
appearance from that of a man!" (Rashi). ----- He’s no longer a man. The symbol
of gender is removed in his astonishing (atoning) catharsis. ----- His greatest
student, Saul of Tarsus, says there’s no longer gender in [on] the Body of
Christ. It was removed on the cross.
On the astonishment of the crowd the great Christian exegete Luther says: "The Hebrew שמם means to be startled, distorted. The word describes the posture of one about to vomit and of one full of revulsion, because His appearance will be so vile that many will be sick and offended. At Him. Why this?"
There were two other men scourged and crucified with Jesus of Nazareth. And crucifixion was probably a common event in the Roman provinces. So why is the crowd so astonished and ready to vomit at Jesus’ crucifixion? The women vomited and kings visiting the holy Land during the Passover festivities had to cover their mouths that they not join the women in vomiting at the sight.
On the astonishment of the crowd the great Christian exegete Luther says: "The Hebrew שמם means to be startled, distorted. The word describes the posture of one about to vomit and of one full of revulsion, because His appearance will be so vile that many will be sick and offended. At Him. Why this?"
There were two other men scourged and crucified with Jesus of Nazareth. And crucifixion was probably a common event in the Roman provinces. So why is the crowd so astonished and ready to vomit at Jesus’ crucifixion? The women vomited and kings visiting the holy Land during the Passover festivities had to cover their mouths that they not join the women in vomiting at the sight.
Numerous medieval
icons show cherubs collecting the blood from the wounds in Jesus' hands. Ironically,
cherubs are also pictured obtaining blood from Jesus' loincloth. The cherubs
collecting blood from the loincloth are not collecting normal circumcision
blood drawn at the ritual emasculation (which doesn't cut all the way through
to the truth or the bone). They're collecting real rather than ritual
circumcision blood. They're collecting blood from an emasculated Jewish male in
order that this real circumcision blood can be sprinkled on Gentiles all over
the world to authenticate their conversion to Judaism. If the blood is
ingested, or sprinkled on a Gentile, he becomes a Jew. If it's sprinkled on a
Jew, in accordance with Parah Adumah,
he becomes a Gentile. This blood makes the profane sacred and the sacred profane.
Jesus is the
first "real" Jew the alef,
or alpha, and the last ritual Jew, the tav,
or omega. He's the first man actually born (rather than ritually born) of an
organ sacrificed through the shedding of blood (brit milah). He became the last racial, ethnic, fleshly, Jew, when
he died on the cross filling up, and thus ending, all the rituals and symbols
in the Old Testament. His death on the cross fulfilled the fullness of Old
Testament ritual, and opened up Judaism to the whole world. Jesus is the seed
of the woman, the seed of Abraham, the Son of David, who transformed Abraham
from the father of a small ethnic tribe into the father of the whole world. He
did this through his emasculated birth followed by his emasculated death.
If Jesus’ death is actually
rebirth (as the Gospels suggest) then Jesus is the Firstborn of the new epoch which
begins when, for the first time, a human being transgresses the hymen of the
morgue with his own hand (he dies of his own freewill rather than the will of
the angel of death). In this he consecrates himself as the Firstborn of the new
epoch, the first person having previously been born, who leaves the womb of the
epoch of death and enters into everlasting life.
At Exodus 4:23 Rabbi Hirsch
says this concerning the Jewish "firstborn" בכור:
The
form of the word is active, not passive. The בכור [firstborn] is not the one
who is set free, but the one who sets free . . . He is פטר רחם [opener of the
womb]. He is בכור [firstborn] not for himself but for those who come after him.
His קדושה [sanctification] lies in that, through him, the home is first blessed
with children; through him, the רחם [womb] becomes קדוש [holy], and everything
that subsequently passes through this portal will be holy unto God.
If we assume that the
"firstborn" is opening the hymen of the womb, i.e., he’s virgin born,
then by opening the womb by the strength of hand, rather than the
leavening-organ (בשר "flesh" = שר-ב
"house of leaven"), the firstborn doesn't only sanctify the womb he’s
opened for himself, he turns the womb into a virgin womb, so that whomever
comes out of that womb is "holy" (set apart) unto God. Those coming
after him are sanctified by the fact that he was a "firstborn." By
opening the womb, he sanctifies the womb, making it perpetually virgin. Jewish
law documents the need for the Jewish firstborn to open the womb with his hand
when it claims that if the child is born of Caesarian-section, he doesn't
qualify as a firstborn. The firstborn must open the womb with his hand.
Why is "opening the womb" the signifier of the identity of the firstborn Jew? Why does Jewish law make sure to make certain that a Caesarian-section child doesn’t qualify as the mother’s firstborn? ------ Because there's only one legal way to document that a Jewish child is Jewish in reality beyond mere ritual. He must be born of an emasculated pregnancy (his father must have really, not just ritually, cut himself out of the whole ordeal).
There’s only one way to determine if a father really, rather than ritually, cut himself out of the pregnancy of the Jewish firstborn. The veil of virginity must be intact at birth. And there's only one way to know that it's intact at birth? The hand of the firstborn must perform the transgressing of virginity that otherwise would have been transgressed by the ritually wounded serpent. Only a firstborn can do this since after the first birth the veil that encloses the womb is gone forever.
This first born Jew justifies the rituals leading up to his birth, literally sanctifying those rituals, making them real, by the reality of his virgin birth. The first born Jew in reality, rather than ritually, is the first Jew virgin born; the first Jew to literally, rather than ritually, open a closed womb.
Rabbi Hirsch scratches his head and says the
scripture's use of "opening the womb" as the way to set apart the
firstborn creates a problem since seemingly every child opens the womb at
birth? How can "opening the womb" set apart the firstborn from all
the other births? Rabbi Hirsch asks this question. And he notes that the text
doesn't say "first" womb opener, but "womb-opener" as an
absolute and singular phenomenon: only the first born opens the womb. All
others follow him through a previously opened womb.
If “opener of the womb” is a metaphor for virgin birth then we have a perfectly good reason why the Torah links the "firstborn" and "opening the womb" in an absolute sense. Every child opens the cervix and the labia at birth. But if the child is virgin-born, i.e., his mother is a virgin, the metaphor, "opening the womb," or "womb-opener," signifies the fact that only the firstborn of a virgin mother could possibly open the hymenal veil of the womb since if the mother was not a virgin, it wouldn't be intact, and after the "womb-opener" (the firstborn), opens the hymen, no other child will have the opportunity to set themselves apart in this halachically significant manner. . . The text is clearly distinguishing between the serpentine womb-opener vs. the consecrated hand of the firstborn.
If “opener of the womb” is a metaphor for virgin birth then we have a perfectly good reason why the Torah links the "firstborn" and "opening the womb" in an absolute sense. Every child opens the cervix and the labia at birth. But if the child is virgin-born, i.e., his mother is a virgin, the metaphor, "opening the womb," or "womb-opener," signifies the fact that only the firstborn of a virgin mother could possibly open the hymenal veil of the womb since if the mother was not a virgin, it wouldn't be intact, and after the "womb-opener" (the firstborn), opens the hymen, no other child will have the opportunity to set themselves apart in this halachically significant manner. . . The text is clearly distinguishing between the serpentine womb-opener vs. the consecrated hand of the firstborn.
Mary's womb is the only womb in human history to give birth to an actual Jew by reason of the fact that he does what no ritual Jew ever did: he opens a closed womb. But Mary's womb is only the physical emblem that represents a spiritual hymen that Jesus torn . . . not at birth . . . but at death.
Because of the unique nature of Jesus' birth . . . as the first “born”
Jew . . . as the first creature from the "hand" of God, rather than
from the phallus of God (Elohim), Jesus is the rightful heir of all things of
the Father. When the Elohim murdered Jesus, they thought they had become the
sole sons left to inherit the world. But there was a secret hidden in creation,
in the seed of the woman, and in the Torah, that far from leaving them sole
inheritors of the Kingdom of God, paves the way for their removal from that
Kingdom.
In Passover terminology Egypt represents death. Egypt is the kingdom of death. Israel was symbolically rescued from slavery to death. When Jesus rises from the dead, he’s the first creature in all creation to leave Egypt: slavery to death. When he leaves Egypt, the tomb, by the strength of his hand "rolling" (galoti, Gilgal, Golgotha) away the shame of slavery to death, he opens the hymen of the morgue, entering into eternal life . . . through the very Way, or Door, that he sanctifies for all who follow him into eternal life. His hand opens the Way, he is thus the Way, the Truth, and the Life, such that no man enters into the Presence of the Father but through the door opened by the nails in his hand, and the opening up of his flesh, which is the veil between heaven and earth.
In Passover terminology Egypt represents death. Egypt is the kingdom of death. Israel was symbolically rescued from slavery to death. When Jesus rises from the dead, he’s the first creature in all creation to leave Egypt: slavery to death. When he leaves Egypt, the tomb, by the strength of his hand "rolling" (galoti, Gilgal, Golgotha) away the shame of slavery to death, he opens the hymen of the morgue, entering into eternal life . . . through the very Way, or Door, that he sanctifies for all who follow him into eternal life. His hand opens the Way, he is thus the Way, the Truth, and the Life, such that no man enters into the Presence of the Father but through the door opened by the nails in his hand, and the opening up of his flesh, which is the veil between heaven and earth.
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of two, one new man, so making
peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross,
having slain the enmity thereby:
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Paul speaks of the "flesh" (a euphemism for the phallus),
being the enmity between male and female, Jew and Greek. ------- But Jesus
Christ abolished the flesh (the phallus) on the cross, therein making of two
(male and female, Jew and Greek) one New Man.
Paul adds that anyone baptized into the blood of the phallus, its death, gains life from that blood. If you’re baptized into that blood, then you put on the body of Christ that hung on the cross. You are no more a male or a female, a Jew or a Greek. Like Christ, you have put off the flesh (the phallus) and become a new man in Christ Jesus: an androgynous male.
If you’re emasculated in the spirit (baptized into Christ's bodily emasculation), then you are the spiritual analogue of Abraham's seed, and heirs of Abraham according to the promise that if he would cut off the flesh (ritually cutting off the foreskin is said to merely signify going the whole way) he would become the father of a new spiritual entity, a new man in Christ Jesus, who is the singular seed of Abraham spoken of by the prophets.
If you're baptized into the blood of Christ, you're the true (versus the ritual) seed of Abraham. You're the true versus the symbolic circumcision ----- you're the Israel of God --- rather than the Israel who merely scathe the flesh ------ who glory in a scar . . . on the flesh . . . glorying in the scared-flesh . . . who glory in the flesh because of a non-mortal wound to the serpent . . . instead of cutting deeper into the Torah scroll to understand what it takes to go all the way, understand who went all the way, when, where, and why.
Paul adds that anyone baptized into the blood of the phallus, its death, gains life from that blood. If you’re baptized into that blood, then you put on the body of Christ that hung on the cross. You are no more a male or a female, a Jew or a Greek. Like Christ, you have put off the flesh (the phallus) and become a new man in Christ Jesus: an androgynous male.
If you’re emasculated in the spirit (baptized into Christ's bodily emasculation), then you are the spiritual analogue of Abraham's seed, and heirs of Abraham according to the promise that if he would cut off the flesh (ritually cutting off the foreskin is said to merely signify going the whole way) he would become the father of a new spiritual entity, a new man in Christ Jesus, who is the singular seed of Abraham spoken of by the prophets.
If you're baptized into the blood of Christ, you're the true (versus the ritual) seed of Abraham. You're the true versus the symbolic circumcision ----- you're the Israel of God --- rather than the Israel who merely scathe the flesh ------ who glory in a scar . . . on the flesh . . . glorying in the scared-flesh . . . who glory in the flesh because of a non-mortal wound to the serpent . . . instead of cutting deeper into the Torah scroll to understand what it takes to go all the way, understand who went all the way, when, where, and why.
In Christian
icons the Cross of Christ is compared to, considered, archetypally imagined,
and imaged as, the Tree of Life. ------- But when Adam and Eve tried to eat
from the Tree of Life, they encountered a serpent offering
"knowledge" Heb. yada, the
same word thereafter used for sexual congress. . . Right then and there a great
enmity between God and man, man and woman, Jew and Greek, was conceived.
It's not hard to picture Jesus as the fruit hanging from the Tree of Life. The serpent who represents the enmity between male and female, Jew and Greek, God and man, life and death, hangs there with him, ever ready to play the role that creates enmity between male and female, Jew and uncircumcised Greek.
But St. Paul tells us over and over that Jesus destroyed the enmity between Jew and Greek, circumcised and uncircumcised, male and female, on his body on the Tree. On his very body, hanging on the Tree, Jesus destroyed the enmity between the circumcised and the uncircumcised, the male and the female (an enmity which Freud claims is fundamental to males and females, Jews and Greeks).
Commenting on Psalm 22:6 Ibn Ezra points out that it's extremely peculiar that a person would say that he’s not a man? Ibn Ezra, with other Jewish commentators, suggests many interpretive reasons why the text proclaims that the sufferer could no longer be considered a man. But the scripture not withstanding the irony is clear that this Sufferer can no longer be seen as a man.
Verse 18 has the Sufferer claiming that they part his blood-stained garment and cast lots upon his clothing. The fact that this Sufferer is no longer a man but a worm segues with the fact that the garments of priest and the veil in the Jerusalem temple were dyed from the crushing of worms, or worm larvae, creating the scarlet or crimson color used in these vestments. Secondarily, and ironically, these worms were also used in pagan divination practices.
Both of these uses are noted in Psalm 22:18 where his garments are stained with his wormy-blood, and the blood-stained garments are laid on the ground in order that lots might be cast upon them.
The objective Jewish reader would perhaps point out that the blood collected on a cloth at circumcision is not only treated as a sacred relic in itself (hung in the synagogue and wrapped around the Torah scroll), but that according to Jewish sages, the "ornamentation" of Israel at the Exodus, their glory clothes (their priestly garments), amounted to the fact that their clothing was stained with the blood of the sacrifice Moses slaughtered and sprinkled on them.
The Sufferer in Psalm 22 notes that because of the nature of his suffering he can no longer be considered a man, and that because of the ramification of this tragic event, his blood, like the blood of circumcision, which in a deeper exegetical cut is emasculation, is not only absorbed by cloth and clothing, but on cloth and clothing that will be used as a direct witness (Psalm 22:18) and treated as though it has divine powers of divination and is a revealer of things sacred.
It's not hard to picture Jesus as the fruit hanging from the Tree of Life. The serpent who represents the enmity between male and female, Jew and Greek, God and man, life and death, hangs there with him, ever ready to play the role that creates enmity between male and female, Jew and uncircumcised Greek.
But St. Paul tells us over and over that Jesus destroyed the enmity between Jew and Greek, circumcised and uncircumcised, male and female, on his body on the Tree. On his very body, hanging on the Tree, Jesus destroyed the enmity between the circumcised and the uncircumcised, the male and the female (an enmity which Freud claims is fundamental to males and females, Jews and Greeks).
Isaiah 52:14 claims that the
Suffering Servant was marred beyond the possibility of his any longer being
seen as a man. He was made into a worm rather than a man. Which is to say, like
a worm, he possessed no sign of gender, no sign of ethic assimilation. In his
body on the tree the distinguishing mark of gender and fleshly religious
identity was removed. On the body of Christ hanging on the cross there was no
signifier of male or female, Jew or Gentile,.
But
I am a worm, and no man;
A defamation of masculinity, and despised of the people.
Psalm 22:6.
A defamation of masculinity, and despised of the people.
Psalm 22:6.
Commenting on Psalm 22:6 Ibn Ezra points out that it's extremely peculiar that a person would say that he’s not a man? Ibn Ezra, with other Jewish commentators, suggests many interpretive reasons why the text proclaims that the sufferer could no longer be considered a man. But the scripture not withstanding the irony is clear that this Sufferer can no longer be seen as a man.
Verse 18 has the Sufferer claiming that they part his blood-stained garment and cast lots upon his clothing. The fact that this Sufferer is no longer a man but a worm segues with the fact that the garments of priest and the veil in the Jerusalem temple were dyed from the crushing of worms, or worm larvae, creating the scarlet or crimson color used in these vestments. Secondarily, and ironically, these worms were also used in pagan divination practices.
Both of these uses are noted in Psalm 22:18 where his garments are stained with his wormy-blood, and the blood-stained garments are laid on the ground in order that lots might be cast upon them.
The objective Jewish reader would perhaps point out that the blood collected on a cloth at circumcision is not only treated as a sacred relic in itself (hung in the synagogue and wrapped around the Torah scroll), but that according to Jewish sages, the "ornamentation" of Israel at the Exodus, their glory clothes (their priestly garments), amounted to the fact that their clothing was stained with the blood of the sacrifice Moses slaughtered and sprinkled on them.
The Sufferer in Psalm 22 notes that because of the nature of his suffering he can no longer be considered a man, and that because of the ramification of this tragic event, his blood, like the blood of circumcision, which in a deeper exegetical cut is emasculation, is not only absorbed by cloth and clothing, but on cloth and clothing that will be used as a direct witness (Psalm 22:18) and treated as though it has divine powers of divination and is a revealer of things sacred.
Throughout the Tanakh, the groom adorns the bride with
"ornaments." The prototype Yom Kippur ritual sees Moses sprinkling
the congregation, who are the bride of God, with the blood of the bull to
ornament their clothing with the crimson stains that mark them as a kingdom of
priests.
The sprinkling of blood on them was in order that they should enter the covenant with God through blood. And they called the stain of blood on their clothing "ornament" [adi] since it was an ornament for them and a great honor. And it gave them testimony [edut] and a sign that they had entered the covenant with God. And therefore, when they sinned with the calf and transgressed the covenant, he said to them: "take off your ornaments," that is, take off from your garments that which has been ornaments for you . . . those clothes on which the blood of the covenant had been thrown that were the witness and sign between God and themselves. And why did God use blood to make a covenant with them? A hint [remez] to them that if they keep the Torah, it will be good, but if not I will allow your blood for karet and for death.
Rabbi Hananel ben Hushiel quoted in David Biale's, Blood and Belief, p. 93.
The ornamented priestly clothing is a great gift to the bride since the bull’s blood is phallic. It represents the fact that the Groom of Israel has slain the serpent, the phallus, the bull, so that the offspring of the Groom and his bride will be free from the Fall in the Garden. They will have everlasting life. They will not be under the authority of the Phallus who is the god of the Gentile world (the whole world exempting Israel). That's the wedding gift from the Groom to His bride Israel: the death of the god of this world. The blood on their garments marks the last time that the Phallus of this world will practice jus primae noctis with the children of Israel. Israel will not be raped by the god of this world: she will be united with God in the bedchamber of the temple without the Phallus being present.
A passage in the Zohar (3:66a) playing with Yom Kippur symbolism notes that Lev. 16:17 claims “no man" shall be in the Tent of Meeting when the union is affected. The Phallus ---the god of this world--- is not present in the bedchamber of the temple when the union between God and Israel is affected. It's a virgin process. No Phallus. And the true high priest has no phallus (since it's removed as the cleansing required of him to enter the most holy place). The high priest slaughtered the Yom Kippur bull prior to his entering into the most holy place.
The high priest must be emasculated since "no man" can be
present during the union of Groom and bride in the most holy place, and yet the
high priest is present in the tabernacle. He can be present, but he cannot be a
“man.” He must have been emasculated prior to entering the most holy place, and
only one high priest was ever emasculated as part and parcel of the cleansing
of his hands and feet prior to his entry into the most holy place.
The zoharic sages suggest that the "rope" in verse 27 of Psalm
118 is not tied to the sacrificial bull, but to the high priest himself. The
passage in the Zohar is the first time in Jewish scripture that the idea of the
high priest as the sacrifice (tied up by a rope, like the sacrifice) is found.
The rope tied to the high priest signifies that the high priest is himself part
and parcel of the sacrifice brought into the most holy place on Yom Kippur.
In Christian symbolism Jesus is emasculated on the cross so that when he enters the most holy place of the heavenly temple he’s “no man”; he doesn't possess a phallus. Therefore he and he alone is fit to sprinkle his bride with the blood of the bull, since he has been freed from the power of the bull, and had the bull on his body bled and removed. He’s in the most holy place when the union occurs. And he’s the bride that the Groom unites with in the bedchamber of the temple.
In Christian symbolism Jesus is emasculated on the cross so that when he enters the most holy place of the heavenly temple he’s “no man”; he doesn't possess a phallus. Therefore he and he alone is fit to sprinkle his bride with the blood of the bull, since he has been freed from the power of the bull, and had the bull on his body bled and removed. He’s in the most holy place when the union occurs. And he’s the bride that the Groom unites with in the bedchamber of the temple.
All who are in Christ, are in Him at that moment, which moment, is the
moment that God and man are united in one person forever. National Israel is
the type of the bride of Christ. But a singular son born of the nation of
Israel is the true Israel from whence the nation gains its name. This singular
son is the first-fruits of Israel. All the nation of Israel who are in him,
when he’s in the most holy place of the temple, are part and parcel of the
community that is the bride of God.
God unites with his bride on Yom Kippur. -----And this union occurs in the most holy place of the temple or tabernacle of God (his house/bride). . . Nevertheless, when this divine union takes place, "No man shall be in the Tent of Meeting" (Lev. 16:17). . . But there is a "man" in the Tent. The high priest who enters on Yom Kippur?
The word "sex" comes from the Latin secare "to divide or cut." And God is said to "cut" a covenant with Abraham when Abraham cuts the organ Jewish commentary suggest determines the gender of a newborn. The organ Abraham cuts to enter a "sexual" (secare) relationship with God is the organ that determines gender, the organ that divides "male" and "female." ------ The organ that "divides" Man into gender ( male and female) is "cut" when a man, Abraham, enters into a relationship with God. It’s cut-off entirely when the high priest (Abraham’s greater son) enters into a direct union with God.
Phallic-sex is goy-sex. Abrahamic-sex doesn't use the phallus to "divide" in order that a temporary and carnally pleasing "re-union" can take place . -----Abrahamic-sex cuts the phallus out so that God and man can enter into a union made permanent by the fact that the organ that divides in the first place is first displaced (brit milah).
Yom Kippur is both the consummation of the marriage of God's transcendence and his immanence on the Day of Atonement. How strange that man's sins are atoned for on the day that God consummates his marriage (as sin began when Adam and Eve consummated theirs). Man's sins are atoned for when God's immanence and his transcendence share a non-phallic intimate moment in the nuptial chamber of the tabernacle.
As above, so below. ----- The Jewish groom wears his kittel, his death attire, under the chuppah. At the first Yom Kippur ritual, Moses sprinkled the bride (Israel) with the blood of the sacrifice. If the groom is the sacrifice, as the Jewish bridegroom wearing his kittel suggests (and the Gospel explicitly teaches --- Hebrews chapter 10), then the blood of his circumcision is the blood of the sacrifice such that the groom sprinkles the bride with his own blood, ornamenting her wedding attire with that potentially "atoning" ornamentation.
The bridegroom was originally circumcised under the chuppah as part of the marriage ritual. The blood would get on the kittel (worn under the chuppah) such that it was this, and not some other cloth, that represented the sanctity of the union. It was the bloody kittel that was the "proof of virginity cloth" given to the bride. Correspondingly, the Hebrew word for "bridegroom" (xathan), originally meant "circumcised." And the word for "father-in-law" (xothen) means "circumciser." The father of the bride circumcises the bridegroom under the chuppah to insure that their union is Jewish and that their offspring will not be contaminated by the serpent whose blood the bride wears as her wedding ornamentation.
The righteous groom, having ornamented the bride with his own atoning blood, rather than having phallic-sex with her (as all sinners do), enters into the Presence of God while his bride holds his proof of virginity cloth, his bloody kittel. He enters before the throne of God in order to sanctify his bride from the contamination and death resulting from phallic-sex (the original sin). If God accepts the blood of the death organ, the phallic serpent (found on the cloth), as an atoning sacrifice (atoning from phallic-sex and the death passed on in that manner), then the blood on the kittel turns white as snow. If God rejects the sacrifice, the blood remains the crimson color that signifies impending death.
According to the Talmud, a crimson cloth was hung at the temple on Yom Kippur. If the high priest successfully obtained atonement, the crimson cloth (representing the bride's gown and the bridegroom’s kittel) turned white as snow. If the offering was rejected the crimson cloth became niddah.
On Yom Kippur the high priest enters the most holy place of the temple seeking atonement for the sins of Israel. Since the most holy place of the temple represents heaven, it's not out of line to think of the high priest symbolically dying when he enters the most holy place of the temple, since death of the physical body is generally a prerequisite for entering into heaven.
As pointed out previously, the sages of the Zohar picked up on this symbolism and spoke of a "cord" (the same Hebrew word used for tying the sacrificial animal to the altar) being tied to the leg of the high priest making him the true sacrifice being ritualized through Yom Kippur symbolism. We see the same symbolism when lamb's blood and circumcision blood are both imagined on the doorposts at the first Passover. The animal's blood is representative of the human blood.
If the high priest's blood is the true sacrifice ritualized by the bull's blood, as the Zohar implies, then the high priest's blood is the actual sacrifice offered to God in order to affect the atonement of the entire community. In this light the New Testament claims that Jesus is the high priest and that it was his own blood that was brought into the temple to seek atonement (not just for Israel but the whole world).
Judaism is not too specific about the "crimson cloth" hung in the temple. But if the Zohar is correct in implying that the high priest is tied up with a "cord" as the true sacrifice, then the "crimson cloth" represents his burial cloth, his death robe, kittel (which is tellingly worn by Jewish males both on the night they consummate their marriage, and on Yom Kippur).
The Catholic church occasionally wheels out an "icon" they claim is Jesus' kittel, his death robe; the cloth wrapped around his "cut" body before its internment in the ground.
The icon known as the “Shroud of Turin” fits all the forgoing nicely since there's an image of the high priest miraculously emblazoned onto the cloth. The cloth also contains the crimson blood of the high priest who entered into the temple to seek atonement with his own blood. In the Shroud of Turin we have a "crimson cloth" directly associated with the Jewish high priest entering into the heavenly temple to seek atonement with his own blood.
The image on the Shroud (or kittel) of Turin is a negative. ----- Whatever process caused the emblazoning of the image of the high priest on the cloth also turned the image into a negative. When the image is reversed to create a positive image, the blood on the cloth is white rather than crimson?
When the cloth is photographed, the image on the photographic negative transforms all other areas of the cloth from a negative image to a normal positive image. But the blood on the cloth is a reverse of all the other images on the cloth. In the negative state, it appears positive (crimson) but in the positive state, it turns into a negative (white). The blood on the "crimson cloth," the high priest's death robe, his kittel, turns white signifying that when the image on the kittel of Turin is revealed to the world it reveals that this high priest truly rather than ritually affected the atonement of all those who are part and parcel of his atoning sacrifice.
Not only is the existence of this color-shifting cloth spoken of in the Talmud, and throughout Jewish midrashim, but the Talmud actual states that the liturgical crimson cloth used in the ritual practices stopped turning white about the time of Jesus' crucifixion (forty years before the destruction of the temple); about the time, that is, that ritual was supplanted by reality.
Since the “crimson cloth” is associated with the high priest's garment, his kittel . . . the crimson symbolically representing his castration (Leviticus 16:17) and death (the kittel is the high priest's death attire), if the cloth doesn't turn white, the other priests know that he has not be resurrected, and they pull him out of the most holy place with the cord tied around his leg (since no one other than the high priest is allowed to go into the most holy place and the high priest is only allow in on Yom Kippur after he has been symbolically castrated and bled to death).
Franz Rosenzweig:
God unites with his bride on Yom Kippur. -----And this union occurs in the most holy place of the temple or tabernacle of God (his house/bride). . . Nevertheless, when this divine union takes place, "No man shall be in the Tent of Meeting" (Lev. 16:17). . . But there is a "man" in the Tent. The high priest who enters on Yom Kippur?
The word "sex" comes from the Latin secare "to divide or cut." And God is said to "cut" a covenant with Abraham when Abraham cuts the organ Jewish commentary suggest determines the gender of a newborn. The organ Abraham cuts to enter a "sexual" (secare) relationship with God is the organ that determines gender, the organ that divides "male" and "female." ------ The organ that "divides" Man into gender ( male and female) is "cut" when a man, Abraham, enters into a relationship with God. It’s cut-off entirely when the high priest (Abraham’s greater son) enters into a direct union with God.
Phallic-sex is goy-sex. Abrahamic-sex doesn't use the phallus to "divide" in order that a temporary and carnally pleasing "re-union" can take place . -----Abrahamic-sex cuts the phallus out so that God and man can enter into a union made permanent by the fact that the organ that divides in the first place is first displaced (brit milah).
Yom Kippur is both the consummation of the marriage of God's transcendence and his immanence on the Day of Atonement. How strange that man's sins are atoned for on the day that God consummates his marriage (as sin began when Adam and Eve consummated theirs). Man's sins are atoned for when God's immanence and his transcendence share a non-phallic intimate moment in the nuptial chamber of the tabernacle.
As above, so below. ----- The Jewish groom wears his kittel, his death attire, under the chuppah. At the first Yom Kippur ritual, Moses sprinkled the bride (Israel) with the blood of the sacrifice. If the groom is the sacrifice, as the Jewish bridegroom wearing his kittel suggests (and the Gospel explicitly teaches --- Hebrews chapter 10), then the blood of his circumcision is the blood of the sacrifice such that the groom sprinkles the bride with his own blood, ornamenting her wedding attire with that potentially "atoning" ornamentation.
The bridegroom was originally circumcised under the chuppah as part of the marriage ritual. The blood would get on the kittel (worn under the chuppah) such that it was this, and not some other cloth, that represented the sanctity of the union. It was the bloody kittel that was the "proof of virginity cloth" given to the bride. Correspondingly, the Hebrew word for "bridegroom" (xathan), originally meant "circumcised." And the word for "father-in-law" (xothen) means "circumciser." The father of the bride circumcises the bridegroom under the chuppah to insure that their union is Jewish and that their offspring will not be contaminated by the serpent whose blood the bride wears as her wedding ornamentation.
The righteous groom, having ornamented the bride with his own atoning blood, rather than having phallic-sex with her (as all sinners do), enters into the Presence of God while his bride holds his proof of virginity cloth, his bloody kittel. He enters before the throne of God in order to sanctify his bride from the contamination and death resulting from phallic-sex (the original sin). If God accepts the blood of the death organ, the phallic serpent (found on the cloth), as an atoning sacrifice (atoning from phallic-sex and the death passed on in that manner), then the blood on the kittel turns white as snow. If God rejects the sacrifice, the blood remains the crimson color that signifies impending death.
According to the Talmud, a crimson cloth was hung at the temple on Yom Kippur. If the high priest successfully obtained atonement, the crimson cloth (representing the bride's gown and the bridegroom’s kittel) turned white as snow. If the offering was rejected the crimson cloth became niddah.
On Yom Kippur the high priest enters the most holy place of the temple seeking atonement for the sins of Israel. Since the most holy place of the temple represents heaven, it's not out of line to think of the high priest symbolically dying when he enters the most holy place of the temple, since death of the physical body is generally a prerequisite for entering into heaven.
As pointed out previously, the sages of the Zohar picked up on this symbolism and spoke of a "cord" (the same Hebrew word used for tying the sacrificial animal to the altar) being tied to the leg of the high priest making him the true sacrifice being ritualized through Yom Kippur symbolism. We see the same symbolism when lamb's blood and circumcision blood are both imagined on the doorposts at the first Passover. The animal's blood is representative of the human blood.
If the high priest's blood is the true sacrifice ritualized by the bull's blood, as the Zohar implies, then the high priest's blood is the actual sacrifice offered to God in order to affect the atonement of the entire community. In this light the New Testament claims that Jesus is the high priest and that it was his own blood that was brought into the temple to seek atonement (not just for Israel but the whole world).
Judaism is not too specific about the "crimson cloth" hung in the temple. But if the Zohar is correct in implying that the high priest is tied up with a "cord" as the true sacrifice, then the "crimson cloth" represents his burial cloth, his death robe, kittel (which is tellingly worn by Jewish males both on the night they consummate their marriage, and on Yom Kippur).
The Catholic church occasionally wheels out an "icon" they claim is Jesus' kittel, his death robe; the cloth wrapped around his "cut" body before its internment in the ground.
The icon known as the “Shroud of Turin” fits all the forgoing nicely since there's an image of the high priest miraculously emblazoned onto the cloth. The cloth also contains the crimson blood of the high priest who entered into the temple to seek atonement with his own blood. In the Shroud of Turin we have a "crimson cloth" directly associated with the Jewish high priest entering into the heavenly temple to seek atonement with his own blood.
The image on the Shroud (or kittel) of Turin is a negative. ----- Whatever process caused the emblazoning of the image of the high priest on the cloth also turned the image into a negative. When the image is reversed to create a positive image, the blood on the cloth is white rather than crimson?
When the cloth is photographed, the image on the photographic negative transforms all other areas of the cloth from a negative image to a normal positive image. But the blood on the cloth is a reverse of all the other images on the cloth. In the negative state, it appears positive (crimson) but in the positive state, it turns into a negative (white). The blood on the "crimson cloth," the high priest's death robe, his kittel, turns white signifying that when the image on the kittel of Turin is revealed to the world it reveals that this high priest truly rather than ritually affected the atonement of all those who are part and parcel of his atoning sacrifice.
Not only is the existence of this color-shifting cloth spoken of in the Talmud, and throughout Jewish midrashim, but the Talmud actual states that the liturgical crimson cloth used in the ritual practices stopped turning white about the time of Jesus' crucifixion (forty years before the destruction of the temple); about the time, that is, that ritual was supplanted by reality.
Since the “crimson cloth” is associated with the high priest's garment, his kittel . . . the crimson symbolically representing his castration (Leviticus 16:17) and death (the kittel is the high priest's death attire), if the cloth doesn't turn white, the other priests know that he has not be resurrected, and they pull him out of the most holy place with the cord tied around his leg (since no one other than the high priest is allowed to go into the most holy place and the high priest is only allow in on Yom Kippur after he has been symbolically castrated and bled to death).
Franz Rosenzweig:
Throughout these days [leading up to Yom Kippur], a
wholly visible sign expresses the underlying motif, namely, that for the
individual, eternity is here shifted into time. For on these days the worshiper
wears his [death] shroud. It is true that even on ordinary days, the moment
when the prayer shawl-chalamys and toga of antiquity—is donned, that moment
directs the mind to the shroud, and to eternal life when God will sheathe the
soul in his mantle. . . But the entire shroud, comprising not only the shawl
but also the under-robe-chiton and tunic of antiquity – is not the costume of
every day. Death is the ultimate, the boundary of creation. Creation cannot
encompass death as such. Only revelation has the knowledge---and it is the
primary knowledge of revelation--- that love is as strong as death. And so man
wears, already once in his life, on his wedding day under the bridal canopy,
his complete [death] shroud which he has received from the hands of the bride.
. . the bridegroom wears his death attire as his wedding attire, and at the
very moment he becomes a true member of the eternal people he challenges death
and becomes as strong as death. . . But on the Days of Awe [leading up the Yom
Kippur] it is worn in a very different spirit. Here it is not a wedding attire
but the true attire of death.
The high priest becomes the bride of God on the Day of Atonement, Yom
Kippur. He's castrated as the completion of the scathing (or marking) received
at ritual circumcision. His castration is required for him to become God's
bride. He enters the most holy place through his own blood, the crimson stain
on the kittel. If the high priest's death
attire, stained with his own blood, remains crimson, then the coupling of God
and man doesn't take place and Israel's sins will not receive atonement. The
priest will remain dead (the blood on the cloth remains crimson) and his corpse
will be pulled out of the most holy place by the cord normally used to attach
the bull to the horns of the altar.
The Jewish wedding ritualizes the "virginity cloth" that
signifies the sanctify of the union taking place when the Jewish wedding is
consummated. Due to lack of understanding regarding the similarities between
the Yom Kippur marriage, and the Jewish wedding rituals, it’s suggested that
the "virginity cloth" was the sheets where phallic-sex consummates
the Jewish wedding. The blood on the sheets is blood from a torn hymen proving
the bride's pre-consummation virginity.
But since the Jewish wedding is symbolic of the union of God and mankind, i.e., the divine wedding consummated on Yom Kippur, we know that the true "virginity cloth" is the crimson cloth that’s the bridegroom's kittel, which he wore under the chuppah, and which he takes off as he enters the heavenly nuptial chamber where the marriage is consummated.
The bridegroom's kittel is the true "virginity cloth." It proves that not only is the bridegroom a virgin, but that his bride will remain a virgin since the blood on the kittel is circumcision blood, which we know is the blood of castration, preparing the Jewish bridegroom for a Jewish union with the bride, which doesn't, like the Gentile consummation, include phallic sex.
The Jewish bride gives the bridegroom his kittel, he’s circumcised in the ritual, but castrated in the reality, and he then gives the bride back the crimson kittel as he goes to seek atonement for her before the very throne of God. The crimson kittel is her ketubah. If her bridegroom is successful before the throne of God, then the crimson stains on her gown will become white as snow and she will prepare herself to meet her bridegroom so that they can become locked in everlasting holy matrimony unmediated by the phallic serpent who’s the mediator and consummate emblem of all non-Jewish marriages.
But since the Jewish wedding is symbolic of the union of God and mankind, i.e., the divine wedding consummated on Yom Kippur, we know that the true "virginity cloth" is the crimson cloth that’s the bridegroom's kittel, which he wore under the chuppah, and which he takes off as he enters the heavenly nuptial chamber where the marriage is consummated.
The bridegroom's kittel is the true "virginity cloth." It proves that not only is the bridegroom a virgin, but that his bride will remain a virgin since the blood on the kittel is circumcision blood, which we know is the blood of castration, preparing the Jewish bridegroom for a Jewish union with the bride, which doesn't, like the Gentile consummation, include phallic sex.
The Jewish bride gives the bridegroom his kittel, he’s circumcised in the ritual, but castrated in the reality, and he then gives the bride back the crimson kittel as he goes to seek atonement for her before the very throne of God. The crimson kittel is her ketubah. If her bridegroom is successful before the throne of God, then the crimson stains on her gown will become white as snow and she will prepare herself to meet her bridegroom so that they can become locked in everlasting holy matrimony unmediated by the phallic serpent who’s the mediator and consummate emblem of all non-Jewish marriages.
