Re: Adam a real historical person was: The death of the RTB model

From: <>
Date: Wed Feb 15 2006 - 20:40:52 EST

In a message dated 2/15/2006 3:59:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:
In a message dated 2/15/2006 10:45:44 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, writes:
The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory. It does not refer to a real person.
So. The genecology in Matthew is fiction, so is 'in Adam all died' and all
the personal references to Adam as a person as blaming Eve for eating the fruit
and the father of children and on and on.
It refers to the birth of self consciousness and the ability to do good and
evil which ALL men inherited from Adam.
But then Adam has to be a real, historical person if we inherit from him. As
above. In Adam all died.


Jack Jackson

Dear Jack,

Beginning in the Rig Veda and on to the Baghavad Gita and Zoroastrianism and
to Judaism, the woman must be kept moral. Here sins determine the failure or
success of all society. Eve reflects that ancient tradition.

Adam is an archetype, not a real person. Because the writers of the Bible did
not know evolution, they simply observed the essential difference between men
and animals. Animals behave instinctively, men do not. The fall describes how
that difference might have come about by a writer who does not know that man
evolved but could see what made man unique among the animals.

"In Adam all died" is ontologically accurate. To appreciate ontology, I read
Tillich's The Courage To Be. Animals have very limited self consciousness.
Only man is fully self conscious. Only man's eyes are opened. Only man is
ashamed. Self consciousness brings awareness of the loss of the self in death.
Because man is conscious of self, he seeks to preserve the self and his ontological
anxiety is increased far above that of instinctive animals because self
conscious as he is, man continually ponders his own mortality. All men did indeed
die once Adam "fell" because awareness of the emergent self's mortality
increased with the self consciousness that is the "fallen" state of man. When Adam's
eyes opened, one of the things he saw was his own eventual death.

There are tremendous problems with the genealogies in the OT and the NT. I
don't know all the arguments but I know there is controversy. There are other
more important issues than the genealogies. Just this week I found two midrashim
(rabbinical commentaries from around the 1st century) in a book published by
the Hasidic Lubbavitchers whose rebbe was considered King Moshiach, the Jewish
messiah. The first one is a midrash on Genesis. It tells of ten trials
Abraham endured on his way to Mount Moriah. In the last, a deep river appears
blocking his way. Abraham does not hesitate. He walks into the water up to his head
and then the river disappears. The second is a midrash on Exodus. Ben Nachshon
Aminidov stood beneath Moses when God commanded Moses to raise his staff and
part the waters. When Moses hesitated, Aminidov walks into the water until it
is over his head. At that moment, Moses raises his staff and the waters part.
In each case, the booklet points out that the waters disappear because of
Abraham's faith and Aminidov's faith. You cannot find a reference to either of
these stories in our bible, but then Aminidov was identified for me on another
"Nahshon son of Amminadab is mentioned in the Bible as the "prince" (nasi) of
the tribe of Judah (Num. 1:7). He was an ancestor of David (Ruth 4:18-22).
The story you quoted from the late Lubbavitcher Rebbe is a well-known midrash,
which has Nahshon as the only one of the Israelites who had enough faith to
take the plunge into the sea, even before God split the waters. It may well have
originated as an aetiology explaining the later leadership position of the
Davidic line. In fact, the story is so well known among Jews, that in modern
Hebrew, "a Nahshon" is anyone who daringly takes the lead in what seems like a
dangerous enterprise. But he was at risk of drowning; I fail to see what that has
to do with Jesus' walking on the water. Of course, Nahshon was also Jesus'
"ancestor" (Mat. 1:4)."

This was crucial information that provided the key to understanding these
midrashim and perhaps the miracle of Jesus' walking on water although this Jewish
poster does not see it, perhaps does not want to see it because both these
stories establish the characteristics of the messiah, characteristics which
Jesus possesses. Look at the comparison.

1. Abraham

He is a patriarch, both KING AND PRIEST. He tithes to Melchizedek whose very
name is KING AND PRIEST. He has faith. He makes the waters disappear. Since
he is king and priest, he has no written law. The law must be written on his

2. Nahshon/Nachshon

He is the chief of the tribe of Judah. In the book of Hebrews, it is written
that Jesus is of the tribe of Judah, which does not know priests. If
Nahshon/Nachshon's tribe does not know priests, then they are patriarchal, like
Abraham, and Nahshon/Nachshon also has the dual roles of PRIEST AND KING. We do not
know if the water parted because of Nachshon's faith or Moses' staff since they
part just as Nachshon's head is submerged and Moses raises his staff but
Nachshon's central quality is his faith. Nachshon is priest and king. His tribe
knows no priests. Therefore, the law must be written on his heart. Remember,
Moses hesitates and because he hesitates, he does not enter the Promised Land.
Moses is a priest. He proffers a written law. The law is NOT written on his
heart. He hesitates because he lacks faith.

In the gospel of Mark, Jesus walks on water. In Matthew, Jesus walks on water
and Peter sinks. Then Jesus says, "Why did you hesitate? How little faith you
Moses was a priest. He hesitates like Peter because he doesn't have the
faith. He only has a written law. The law is NOT written on his heart.

Abraham has faith, is a patriarch and the law is written on his heart.

Nachson, chief of the tribe of Judah, which does not know priests, has faith.
The law is written on his heart.

Jesus is of the order of Melchizedek, both PRIEST AND KING like Abraham,
Nachshon and Melchizedek (who has both roles malki/zadok), the law is written on
his heart.

The entire purpose of the brochure containing these midrashim of genesis and
exodus which was printed at the time of Rebbe Schneerson's death was to prove
he was the "moshiach."

Is Jesus' walking on water based on these midrashim circa 1st century which
do not appear in the bible but describe the nature of the messiah, Jesus, in
each case with water as the obstacle to be overcome?

Or now that I know these midrashim of genesis and exodus, am I to believe
that Jesus' walking on the water has no connection at all with them?

We live in exciting times.

rich faussette
Received on Wed Feb 15 20:41:35 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 15 2006 - 20:41:35 EST