Re: I didn't think Adam had the capacity for error until Eve was created...

Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 08:48:17 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: BUSINESS PROPOSAL"

    Rich and Everyone,

    Please accept my humble apologies. Please forgive me. My intention was not
    to be derisive in any way - simply funny. I will be more careful in the

    I believe that Adam was created perfect (by God) with the capacity for error.
    I believe that Eve was also created perfect by God with the same capacity for
    error because Adam and Eve were one flesh - bone of Adam's bone, flesh of his
    flesh. The physical and spiritual implications of this simple statement is a
    mystery that is generally beyond my understanding. The mystery will probably
    be explained at the marriage supper of the Lamb and I can hardly wait to hear
    it! God is an amazing, awesome God with mysteries that are so wonderful I am
    often left speechless.



    > I made this statement:
    > You are saying that Adam demonstrated the capacity for error before the
    > Fall?
    > I didn't think he had it until Eve was created.
    > And got these derisive responses:
    > +++++++++
    > If Adam didn't have the capacity for error until after Eve was created
    > from
    > his rid,[sic] this means that God took the one perfect part of him to
    > create
    > woman!
    > Everything makes sense to me now!
    > Sheila
    > ++++++++
    > So He accidentally marred Adam in the process of creating Eve? Oh yes,
    > there is that missing rib! I never made the link between a missing rib
    > and capacity for error!
    > I admire your dry sense of humor! JimA
    > ========================================
    > Where did I ever get such a sense of humor?
    > Perhaps from Gershom Scholem, author of the Messianic Idea in Judaism.
    > In the
    > preface, Scholem is called the "master builder of historical studies of
    > the
    > Kabbalah." What does that have to do with Genesis and the fall? For that
    > we
    > look to Adolphe Franke:
    > From Adolph Franke's The Kabbalah, the religious philosophy of the
    > Hebrews.
    > "In the Mishna (Haggiga Sec.2) we find this remarkable passage: "The
    > story of
    > Genesis (the Creation) is not to be explained to two men, the story of
    > the
    > Merkaba (Heavenly Chariot) not even to one, unless he be wise and can
    > deduce
    > wisdom of his own accord."
    > Then:
    > "If we are to believe Maimonides, - who, although a stranger to the
    > Kabbalah, could not deny its existence - the first half, entitled the
    > "Story
    > of Genesis," taught the science of nature, and the second half, called
    > the
    > "Story of the Chariot," contained a treatise on theology. This opinion
    > was
    > accepted by all the Kabbalists.
    > So, the concensus among scholars of Jewish mysticism and the Kabbalah is
    > that
    > Genesis is allegorical since they're not allowed to reveal its real
    > meaning.
    > That is how they study it. So, what do they say?
    > "The soul of all mankind was originally contained within Adam. Now its
    > sparks
    > were scattered throughout the terrestrial universe, and the continued
    > existence of sin has ever more increased their dispersion. They are in
    > exile
    > and must be led home and restored to their primordial spiritual
    > structure,
    > which is at the same time, the structure of Adam and the structure of
    > the
    > Messiah." p.187 Scholem
    > Then on page 227, "Man and God are each only a half finished, incomplete
    > form. Man without God is really not man, adam, a sublime and spiritual
    > being,
    > but only dam, blood, a biological entity. He is lacking the a or alef,
    > which
    > is God, alufo shel olam, the master of the world. Only when the alef and
    > dam,
    > God and man, get together, the two form a real unity, and only then does
    > man
    > deserve to be called Adam. But how is such unity, ahdut, to be
    > accomplished?
    > By kisuf which means the constant striving for union with God. If man
    > casts
    > off all earthly or material elements and ascends through all the worlds
    > and
    > becomes one with God to the degree of losing the feeling of separate
    > existence, then will he be rightly called adam, Man." Scholem
    > Again from Adolphe Franke: "The first, says the Zohar text, is the
    > Ancient,
    > seen face to face. It is the supreme head, the source of all light, the
    > principle of all wisdom, and can be defined only as unity. From this
    > absolute
    > unity, distinct from the various forms and from all relative unity,
    > issue two
    > parallel principles, opposite in appearance but inseparable in reality.
    > One
    > male or active is called Wisdom; the other passive or female, is
    > designated
    > by a word customarily translated as intelligence." p. 96
    > So, if the structure of God is perfect unity including the male and
    > female
    > principles, then the structure of the Son of God must also contain male
    > and
    > female principles. The Jewish Messiah is said to share the structure of
    > Adam
    > before he had the feeling of separate existence from God, when dam was
    > Adam
    > and there was perfect unity.
    > If Jesus is messiah in the Kabbalistic sense, and why shouldn't He be?
    > Then
    > somewhere in Christian texts there must be allegorical reference to the
    > perfect unity of Jesus including male and female.
    > I found these fascinating references to the messiah in Nag Hammadi
    > texts, for
    > example, the Gospel of Philip:
    > "When Eve was still in Adam, death did not exist. When she was separated
    > from
    > him, death came into being. If he enters again and attains his former
    > self,
    > death will be no more."
    > We do accept that Jesus conquered death, do we not? To do so, he must
    > attain
    > his former self, and forsake multiplicity for unity (with God/as God).
    > The Gospel of Thomas:
    > "They said to him, shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom? Jesus
    > said
    > to them,"...when you make the male and female one and the same, so that
    > the
    > male not be male nor the female female."
    > Jesus said to her, "I am he who exists from the undivided."
    > Jesus said,"I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that
    > she
    > too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who
    > will
    > make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
    > 1 Corinthians: 15-22: As in Adam all men die, so in Christ all will be
    > brought to life."
    > This is what I had originally written that provoked the one line
    > responses:
    > You are saying that Adam demonstrated the capacity for error before the
    > Fall?
    > I didn't think he had it until Eve was created.
    > Now you know why I didn't think Adam demonstrated the capacity for error
    > until Eve was created. Because it was at that point that he was
    > 'separated,'
    > no longer enjoyed unity and was susceptible to desire which was not an
    > issue
    > when MALE AND FEMALE WERE ONE. When male and female were one, there was
    > nothing to desire as everything was contained in one unity and
    > perfection.
    > With the creation of Eve, Adam was no longer complete in himself and
    > neither
    > was Eve. The first desire, now that desire could rise from the
    > incompleteness
    > and separateness of Adam and Eve, was to eat from the Tree of the
    > Knowledge
    > of Good and Evil. They did this together but as 'separated' beings.
    > Now you not only understand what I was trying to say, but what the
    > Kabbalists
    > and the Gnostics also said which prompted it.
    > Using non-canonical works seems to lead to my being misunderstood. I
    > mean to
    > give you good information and I find that there is a thread from the
    > allegories in Genesis to gershom scholem and adolphe franke's
    > interpretation
    > of the Kabbalah to the coptic nag hammadi texts that suggests my remark
    > that
    > "I didn't think Adam had demonstrated the capacity for error until Eve
    > was
    > created," is absolutely appropriate, in line with all of these texts,
    > their
    > philosophies and the Biblical scholars who study them and no laughing
    > matter
    > at all. What I might point out is that in each derisive response the
    > writer
    > addressed the surface meaning of the allegory, the "rib," - the one
    > meant
    > for the common people.
    > rich

    Sheila McGinty

    This mail sent through GeoTEC Webmail:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jan 22 2003 - 08:48:37 EST