• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Seed of Ha-adam.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
It is incredibly intetesting what you have just said.

I guess it is also connected to the fact that when Eve is created, she is called isha ...from ish (male)...and it is a very interesting term because even in the Vulgate she is not called mulier (woman) but virago from vir (male).

The Jewish sage are aware that in Hebrew a word isn't the lowest common denominator of meaning. Every word breaks down into glyphs (consonant letters), or heiro-glyphs (Hebrew retains sacred pictographic meaning) such that the individual consonants making up a Hebrew word reveal deeper (hidden) aspects of the whole word and larger text.

Since Mary is the archetype of the prototype (Mary is a latter day type of the first human ---Ha-adam --- as the first human existed prior to Genesis 2:21), we can know that the first human, Ha-adam, had a female body indwelt by the messianic-male (the original androgyny) prior to and without phallic copulation providing the means for that male to be there. Had the desecration that takes place in Genesis 2:21 not occurred, such that phallic copulation would have been impossible (since Genesis 2:21 is the manufacture not of female flesh, but of the male flesh, the phallus) Ha-adam would have given birth to Messiah on the first Sabbath:

The primal flaw must be mended so that all things can return to their proper place, to their original posture. . . If Adam had not sinned the world would have entered the Messianic state on the first Sabbath after creation, with no historical process whatever.

Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, p. 46.


John
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Philologically interesting.
I have always thought the Hebrew Term Adam was the perfect translation of the Greek anthropos, which indicates both male and female persons.
It would suggest that the creation of Eve actually symbolizes the birth of the two genders , ish and ishah.
 
Last edited:

Treasure Hunter

Well-Known Member
we can know that the first human, Ha-adam, had a female body indwelt by the messianic-male (the original androgyny) prior to and without phallic copulation providing the means for that male to be there.
New life is always linked with some form of death. For as misguided as the ancients were with their sacrifices, they at least understood that at some level. Pain and risk are a part of childbirth.

The messianic male does not enter the world singularly with no immediate attachment to death.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
. . . That's a funny double entendre since Philo, logically, in my opinion, claimed, interestingly, that virgin girls are not female but androgynes.
John
Oh...I guess that is why on their first time, girls tell their own men "make me a woman". :p
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
New life is always linked with some form of death. For as misguided as the ancients were with their sacrifices, they at least understood that at some level. Pain and risk are a part of childbirth.

The messianic male does not enter the world singularly with no immediate attachment to death.

. . . This is an extremely important idea that we discussed in the thread on Sex and the Origins of Death (a thread that became the essay at the link). In that thread I quoted a brilliant Phd biologist, Professor William R. Clark, explaining how death is thought to have arisen around the time organisms began experimenting with sex. He says, poetically, that it was the ultimate loss of innocence, since prior to sex, organisms were immortal so far as their biology was concerned. Death came only from external dangers and not from inside the genes.

In this sense what Professor Clark calls "programmed death" (death programmed into the genes as senescence) was the ultimate trade-off with the environment that previously owned death.

Someone might say, what on god's green earth would the organism get in trade that would be worth allowing death into the very cell-structure of the organism? And the answer is somewhat obvious.

In Darwinian theory the environment does all the "selecting" for change by mindlessly determining which organisms survive. A forest fire deposing ash all over the place might, for a time, make black moths survive longer (and thus procreate more) than white moths, therein "selecting" black moths (for a time) as more adapted to survival than white moths.

In the trade-off noted above, living organisms, by allowing death to dramatically shorten their lifespan through genetic predisposition (senescence), create not only a dramatic increase in genetic variation, since a formerly immortal organism now dies in a finite time-frame, but by shortening the lifespan, making death a genetic certainty, organisms now, for the first time, get to start "selecting" (sexuality) a mate based on perceived survival traits (leading to mindful minds and thus mindful selection pressures).

In this way, organisms speed up the evolution process exponentially by taking death into the organism (its genes) for the right to "select" for survival traits which will lead, inevitably, to larger, stronger bodies, and then larger, more powerful brains, and eventually, to Mind freed from genes (memes) altogether.

When Mind is freed from genes altogether, the environment that traded cellular death for the genetic right to select for survival will realize its no good at trading since once Mind jettisons the biology it used to free itself from the environment it will once again be immortal, as it was prior to the trade, but with the added nuance that it need no longer fear the reaper in the environment since it will have become truly immortal, truly and utterly free from death (John 6:54).



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I have always thought the Hebrew Term Adam was the perfect translation of the Greek anthropos, which indicates both male and female persons.
It would suggest that the creation of Eve actually symbolizes the birth of the two genders , ish and ishah.

My interpretation of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (which is the conception of Mary and not Jesus) is that Mary is designed by, conceived by God, to generate a male without sex, just like Ha-adam was originally conceived, and designed (to birth the firstborn of creation without phallic sex), such that Ha-adam, and Mary, as prototype and archetype, are immaculately conceived to immaculately conceive. They're made, able to conceive, become pregnant, immaculately, i.e., without phallic sex.

In this sense the Immaculate Conception is the conception of God (and or God's conception), wrought in Ha-adam (before she's deceived, like her clone, Eve), and then in Mary (who lives up to God's conception of her conceiving immaculately ----as should have been the case with the prototype: Ha-adam).

This concept makes Ha-adam a female body (but not a woman yet) with the potential for generating a male inside without a dual-gendered mechanism (phallic sex). This implies that Eve is a clone of Ha-adam such that the flesh that's novel, in Genesis 2:21, is, ironically, the male flesh, the penis, made by suturing together Ha-adam's labial flesh, in order to prepare for the original sin, phallic sex, producing the firstborn murderer, Cain.

If this theory is correct, we should like to find it supported not just by reference to Philo, but philology too. Until after Genesis 2:21, the Hebrew words for "male" and "female" don't exist in the Hebrew text of the narrative. The Hebrew words for "male," and "female," don't exist in the narrative until after Genesis 2:21, where the male flesh (the novel flesh) comes, so to say, onto the scene.

Where we understand that the Hebrew word isn't the lowest common denominator of meaning (letters have sacred significance) exegesis of the Hebrew words for "male" and "female" provide a real gem for the serious Hebrew exegete.



John
 
Last edited:

Treasure Hunter

Well-Known Member
. . . This is an extremely important idea that we discussed in the thread on Sex and the Origins of Death (a thread that became the essay at the link). In that thread I quoted a brilliant Phd biologist, Professor William R. Clark, explaining how death is thought to have arisen around the time organisms began experimenting with sex. He says, poetically, that it was the ultimate loss of innocence, since prior to sex, organisms were immortal so far as their biology was concerned. Death came only from external dangers and not from inside the genes.

In this sense what Professor Clark calls "programmed death" (death programmed into the genes as senescence) was the ultimate trade-off with the environment that previously owned death.

Someone might say, what on god's green earth would the organism get in trade that would be worth allowing death into the very cell-structure of the organism? And the answer is somewhat obvious.

In Darwinian theory the environment does all the "selecting" for change by mindlessly determining which organisms survive. A forest fire deposing ash all over the place might, for a time, make black moths survive longer (and thus procreate more) than white moths, therein "selecting" black moths (for a time) as more adapted to survival than white moths.

In the trade-off noted above, living organisms, by allowing death to dramatically shorten their lifespan through genetic predisposition (senescence), create not only a dramatic increase in genetic variation, since a formerly immortal organism now dies in a finite time-frame, but by shortening the lifespan, making death a genetic certainty, organisms now, for the first time, get to start "selecting" (sexuality) a mate based on perceived survival traits (leading to mindful minds and thus mindful selection pressures).

In this way, organisms speed up the evolution process exponentially by taking death into the organism (its genes) for the right to "select" for survival traits which will lead, inevitably, to larger, stronger bodies, and then larger, more powerful brains, and eventually, to Mind freed from genes (memes) altogether.

When Mind is freed from genes altogether, the environment that traded cellular death for the genetic right to select for survival will realize its no good at trading since once Mind jettisons the biology it used to free itself from the environment it will once again be immortal, as it was prior to the trade, but with the added nuance that it need no longer fear the reaper in the environment since it will have become truly immortal, truly and utterly free from death (John 6:54).



John
Indeed, well said. But I’m now going to be even more blunt: No male enters this world sinless.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Indeed, well said. But I’m now going to be even more blunt: No male enters this world sinless.

In the theosophy delineated in the essay, Sex and the Origins of Death, the male enters into biology at the same time death does, implying that the genesis of biological masculinity is the genesis of biological sin (sin and death being two sides of the same coin of the realm). This makes masculine flesh the very symbol and incarnation of sin. Which is perhaps why Dante makes the phallus the pillar at the entrance to hell; and why the phallus represents the serpent of death in Judeo/Christian myth; and why the central symbol of Judaism is bleeding the serpent (brit milah).

According to Catholicism, death flows through the male flesh. St. Paul, Augustine, Thomas Aquina, and Luther, all, taught that death flows through (is passed on in propagation by means of) male flesh, male biology, the symbol of masculinity on the human body. In this sense the male can't enter the world sinless since his very incarnate presence is the genesis of sin.

But the price to progress from the Adam story to the Christ story, and from the Christ story to the Son of Man story, is death. Just as the female invited death for more life, the male has to invite death for more life.​

In this theosophy the realm of death is the portal not to immortality of the cell, ala the garden of eden, but to everlasting life: a life no longer subject to cell-death (senescence), nor even death at the hands of the environment. Cell-immortality is a state that already existed prior to the arrival of cell-death. It signified only that death wasn't part of biology. Allowing death (masculinity) into the realm of biology leads back not to mere biological immortality (which existed prior to receiving biological death), i.e., the original state of the cell, but to something profoundly greater, everlasting life (a life no longer subject to death whatsoever).

When Paul says eye has not seen, ear has not heard, neither has it entered into the mind of man what God has prepared for those who love him, he isn't just whistling Dixie.



John
 
Last edited:

Treasure Hunter

Well-Known Member
In this theosophy the realm of death is the portal not to immortality of the cell, ala the garden of eden, but to everlasting life: a life no longer subject to cell-death (senescence), nor even death at the hands of the environment.
To be clear, do you not see the Garden of Eden as representing everlasting life?
 

Treasure Hunter

Well-Known Member
I can see how, once masculinity is associated with death/sin, there would be an impulse to rebel against maleness, and how that would lead to the idea of circumcision and the idea that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. I can completely follow that extrapolation. It is why Jesus (and Christianity in general) has been feminized. But that path doesn’t go anywhere. There is an inherent lack of faith, a lack of trust that there is a higher purpose to including the male in combination with sin.

It’s why we cling to Eve’s counterfeit Garden instead of rightly rejecting it. It’s also why we tell a victimhood narrative about Adam in Genesis 2-3 once we can’t escape the realization that we are Adam. It’s all part of the rejection of masculinity as a shortsighted attempt to escape death/sin.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
My interpretation of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (which is the conception of Mary and not Jesus) is that Mary is designed by, conceived by God, to generate a male without sex, just like Ha-adam was originally conceived, and designed (to birth the firstborn of creation without phallic sex), such that Ha-adam, and Mary, as prototype and archetype, are immaculately conceived to immaculately conceive. They're made, able to conceive, become pregnant, immaculately, i.e., without phallic sex.

In this sense the Immaculate Conception is the conception of God (and or God's conception), wrought in Ha-adam (before she's deceived, like her clone, Eve), and then in Mary (who lives up to God's conception of her conceiving immaculately ----as should have been the case with the prototype: Ha-adam).

This concept makes Ha-adam a female body (but not a woman yet) with the potential for generating a male inside without a dual-gendered mechanism (phallic sex). This implies that Eve is a clone of Ha-adam such that the flesh that's novel, in Genesis 2:21, is, ironically, the male flesh, the penis, made by suturing together Ha-adam's labial flesh, in order to prepare for the original sin, phallic sex, producing the firstborn murderer, Cain.

If this theory is correct, we should like to find it supported not just by reference to Philo, but philology too. Until after Genesis 2:21, the Hebrew words for "male" and "female" don't exist in the Hebrew text of the narrative. The Hebrew words for "male," and "female," don't exist in the narrative until after Genesis 2:21, where the male flesh (the novel flesh) comes, so to say, onto the scene.

Where we understand that the Hebrew word isn't the lowest common denominator of meaning (letters have sacred significance) exegesis of the Hebrew words for "male" and "female" provide a real gem for the serious Hebrew exegete.



John


To be precise...the Immaculate Conception is a dogma referring to Mary's preservation from sin since her parents promised God they would consecrate her to Him, according to the Protoevangelium of James.
That said...I perfectly agree with you on the fact that Adam and Mary represent the same archetype, the Creation that takes place without intercourse. Out of love only.
Do not forget that Abel was born out of Love too...from Adam and Eve.
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
To be clear, do you not see the Garden of Eden as representing everlasting life?

I see it representing immortality but not everlasting life. Clearly Adam and Eve were in the Garden and yet they died. If they had everlasting life, they wouldn't be subject to death.

So they were immortal. And so long as they obeyed the lord of the garden, who was an environmental factor for them, they wouldn't die. But they were nevertheless subject to death from outside of themselves: the law, or commandment.

So in what I'm proffering, everlasting life is what exists on the other side of the realm of death. It's not a return to Eden, and mere immortality. It's a life that isn't subject to commandments or any external threat whatsoever; a life where death no longer exists forever and ever and ever.


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I can see how, once masculinity is associated with death/sin, there would be an impulse to rebel against maleness, and how that would lead to the idea of circumcision and the idea that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. I can completely follow that extrapolation. It is why Jesus (and Christianity in general) has been feminized. But that path doesn’t go anywhere. There is an inherent lack of faith, a lack of trust that there is a higher purpose to including the male in combination with sin.

It’s why we cling to Eve’s counterfeit Garden instead of rightly rejecting it. It’s also why we tell a victimhood narrative about Adam in Genesis 2-3 once we can’t escape the realization that we are Adam. It’s all part of the rejection of masculinity as a shortsighted attempt to escape death/sin.

I think I understand the problem you're pointing out. And I think there's a solution to it in the theosophy I'm propounding.

Within the framework I'm working there's first parthenogenesis, which I'm using as a catchphrase for all pre-gendered sexual propagation. In parthenogenesis (as I'm using it) all organisms are female and procreate to create females.

Next comes an emergent "male-female," (a female with male sexual paraphernalia: ha-adam after Genesis 2:21). And with dual-gender comes insemination, producing both male-female offspring, and female offspring. This is the stage where, in order for the male-female to emerge from the formerly immortal female world, cellular-death (through senescence) enters the scene and biology: Cain, and all his offspring.

Lastly, but not yeastly, comes Messiah: the emanation of true male-ness (rather than male-female-ness). There's only One. And can only be One. In Hebrew he's echad אחד, singular, utterly unique, true deity in-fleshed (in bodily form).

But with incarnate deity comes the fundamental problem. True masculinity, ironically, in it's singular manifestation, is sterile. It can't reproduce with females or male-females since it's from a different kingdom altogether. It's uniqueness makes it sterile.

Which leads to perhaps the greatest secret in theology: Messiah isn't sterile. The singular male isn't impotent, infecund, or infertile. That's the great theological secret hidden in Jesus of Nazareth's birth, life, and death: he wasn't unable to procreate and in fact has proven himself to be the most fertile creature ever to walk this planet. And he procreates without using the male-female organ of masculinity. He procreates by using the true, singular, male-organ. The sacrificial cross.



John
 
Last edited:

Treasure Hunter

Well-Known Member
I think I understand the problem you're pointing out. And I think there's a solution to it in the theosophy I'm propounding.

Within the framework I'm working there's first parthenogenesis, which I'm using as a catchphrase for all pre-gendered sexual propagation. In parthenogenesis (as I'm using it) all organisms are female and procreate to create females.

Next comes an emergent "male-female," (a female with male sexual paraphernalia: ha-adam after Genesis 2:21). And with dual-gender comes insemination, producing both male-female offspring, and female offspring. This is the stage where, in order for the male-female to emerge from the formerly immortal female world, cellular-death (through senescence) enters the scene and biology: Cain, and all his offspring.

Lastly, but not yeastly, comes Messiah: the emanation of true male-ness (rather than male-female-ness). There's only One. And can only be One. In Hebrew he's echad אחד, singular, utterly unique, true deity in-fleshed (in bodily form).

But with incarnate deity comes the fundamental problem. True masculinity, ironically, in it's singular manifestation, is sterile. It can't reproduce with females or male-females since it's from a different kingdom altogether. It's uniqueness makes it sterile.

Which leads to perhaps the greatest secret in theology: Messiah isn't sterile. The singular male isn't impotent, infecund, or infertile. That's the great theological secret hidden in Jesus of Nazareth's birth, life, and death: he wasn't unable to procreate and in fact has proven himself to be the most fertile creature ever to walk this planet. And he procreates without using the male-female organ of masculinity. He procreates by using the true, singular, male-organ. The sacrificial cross.



John
We are not that far apart. If we associate the flesh with female and mind/consciousness/soul as male, then to become fully male is the path of the Messiah. With the flesh, there are many paths, but with consciousness, there is only one.

The Messiah Christ seeks the Sophia - the mustard seed, or spark of the divine that exists within every human being. As we become more male and live the Christ story, the mustard seed grows into a tree “greater than all the herbs”. The love story between Christ and Sophia is the understanding of true love (the Bridegroom)

The Son of Man is the offspring of Christ and Sophia. The Son of Man is the Crucified One who brings forth the Kingdom. I agree that this is all a secret.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
That said...I perfectly agree with you on the fact that Adam and Mary represent the same archetype, the Creation that takes place without intercourse. Out of love only.
Do not forget that Abel was born out of Love too...from Adam and Eve.

When Judaism and Christianity split in the early centuries of the current era a tragedy of biblical proportion was born of the split. Christianity took Christ, and Judaism took knowledge of the Hebrew text of the holy scripture.

The earliest manuscripts of the Catholic "Old Testament" come out of the interpretation Judaism codified as the Masoretic Text.

Unfortunately, that text codifies the very interpretation of the text that led to the crucifixion of Christ. Catholicism reads their marching orders out of the very text that led to the error of condemning Christ with the written text of the Torah as it was interpreted by Jews in his day.

In the Masoretic Text, Eve claims that she births a male with Yahweh. But stripped clean of the pointy addendum that lead to that interpretation of the text, the text can be shown to say that it's Abel, and not Cain, who is conceived by the Lord.

Cain is a usurper. He is born out of true birth order as that order was established by God. Abel is the true firstborn of ha-adam. Cain is the second born, conceive in the second way of being conceived: phallic sex. The celibacy of the Catholic priesthood is, like brit milah (i.e., Jewish ritual circumcision) a premonition concerning something hidden beneath the manner the Hebrew text is interpreted by the Masoretes. Phallic-sex is not the original manner in which God intended the first male to be born into the world.

The Hebrew text says Adam "knew" ידע how his wife conceived Cain. But the text doesn't include the Hebrew word yada ידע ("knew," a euphemism for phallic-sex) concerning Abel. Abel is the virgin firstborn of the story. Like Zarah, later in the scripture, Abel puts forth his hand first, while Cain, like Perez, bursts forth out of order to take the tile of firstborn male of creation.

Interpreted with care, and a knowledge of the pre-Masoretic Hebrew text, Abel is not born of phallic-sex, or dual gendered sexual intercourse. Cain, of course, is, born of phallic-sex, and is, the prototype of that type of inborn sinful existence.



John
 
Last edited:
Top