From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Fri Jan 03 2003 - 07:45:19 EST
In a message dated 1/2/03 7:32:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, gmurphy@raex.com
writes:
> 2) The natural reading of Genesis 1:26-28 is that _adham_
> here means "man" in
> the collective (& inclusive) sense or "humankind" (NRSV) rather than
> to a single
> individual named "Adam" - pace the Zohar, the Gospel of Thomas &
> other speculations
> about the androgyny of the first human. The account of the creation
> of humanity in
> Genesis 2:4b-25 is of course different, but these are two different
> creation accounts.
>
>
>
Yes, and according to clevenot's materialist approaches to the bible, the
two versions are priestly (p) 2:1-4 and yahwist(3), but you are missing my
point entirely in fact it was not my point. I was quoting the zohar from
Adolph Frank's The Kabbalah so it is the judgment of Jewish mystics in the
zohar that these two accounts be interpreted that way and it is precisely
because an androgyne is perfect to them and Adam was an androgyne before Eve
as far as they were concerned and then when we go to the gnostics (in the nag
hammadi texts) who were also mystics they speak a lot about androgynes and
becoming both male and female to return to God.
It appears that the mystical aspect of early Christianity as in the early
zohar and the recently discovered nag hammadi texts is absent, unrecognized
or limited in the canonical works. It' source in the Kabbalah and its
appearance in the nag hgammadi texts suggest it was an essential element that
existed in Jesus' time. I was not quoting myself when I made the reference to
THEM in regard to Adam and Eve.
rich
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 02:22:49 EST