Re: Vatican

From: <>
Date: Wed Nov 09 2005 - 23:18:42 EST

In a message dated 11/9/2005 11:04:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:
Can we at least agree that Jesus of Nazareth was masculine?

and maybe can we also agree that he still is?

Your tongue is surely in your cheek. If you are referring to the wholeness
(holiness) of the pre-fall Adam and the new Adam (below) that I get from Scholem
and the Nag Hammadi texts, it is in the category of theology/ontology and
cannot be confused with a secondary sexual characteristic.
I gave you a great reference. Scholem is considered one of the greatest
scholars of Jewish mysticism.
"Jewish theology posits the messiah to be male and female. The reasoning goes
this way: Before Eve was created from Adam's rib, Adam contained both male
and female principles and therefore had NO DESIRE. Once Adam and Eve were
separated, each lacked something the other had and desire was born. It was desire
that caused the eating of the apple.
Jesus is portrayed as celibate, like the pre-fall Adam the messiah has no
desire. He is complete in himself.
I do not see Christian theology departing from this schema. Also, the nag
hammadi texts make much mention of male becoming female and female becoming male
to enter the kingdom.
For background see Gershom Scholem's the messianic idea in Judaism"
rich faussette
Received on Wed Nov 9 23:24:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 09 2005 - 23:24:06 EST