Appendix to “Three Bodies”, Page 2

Before condemning the legend as contrary to the Mosaic account, several mysterious things in the Bible need be brought to mind:

First, the meaning of the tantalizing similarities between the seven generations of Cain’s descendants (Gen 4) and ten of Seth (Gen 5):

After recognizing all these similarities and the appearance of “three sons” to end both lines and their prior scholarly characterization as two different sources (J and P), the commentary at 1 NIB 380 prefers to treat them as “two separate family lines.” It sees the “vengeful response of Lamech” to Cain’s murder of Abel as indicating that Gen 5 represented a “fresh start, building upon the reference” to the origin of Yahweh worship which concludes Gen 4 (vs 26).

Second, let us consider the doctrine of the Trinity.22 Since with it we are dealing only in terms of “doctrine,” it is hard to conceive, in an earthly sense, of the Son having come forth without having a Mother as well as a Father. Nor are we without some Biblical basis for this concept, for Prov 8,22 tells us that the feminine Sophia (“wisdom”) whom we may relate to the Eve concept, was the first creative act of “the Lord.”23 And if we take “Lord” here to mean the Eloha “Yahweh,” then the fractal-like pattern of that creative act must derive from the highest source within the Trinity itself. The Father must have been, as modern sexist-free writing would suggest, androgynous, until divided into the fruitful male-female dualism from which the creative “Word” itself, the Christ or “Son,” went out. A patriarchal society would not have found it difficult to speak, as the Bible does, only of the male aspect—“sons” are everywhere, but “daughters, sisters and wives” appear only as instruments of the story.

Third, even later in the Biblical account, “when men [notice, no women] began to multiply on the face of the ground,” suggesting a look back to Lemuria when mineralization, in the tenuous transition from “Fire” to air, then water, then solids, was first occurring (which led to eventual hardening, as in the meaning of “Adam”); “daughters were born to them,” and “the sons of God” cohabited with them to produce offspring of a spatially huge (giant-like or “mighty”) cloud-like (“Nephilim”) nature. See Gen 6,1-4. Here we have offspring produced by earthly females sired by godly or heavenly, creative male spirits. That it should have happened this way with the first earthly Eve cannot therefore be considered contrary to the Bible, unless, of course, the evolutionary nature of the human being, its descent through the higher states of existence, and eventually into the reality of reincarnation, are to be rejected—in which case theology can continue its groping in the “Darkness” for meaning to such passages as these.

Fourth, just as we wrestle with the concept of an irresistible force versus an immovable object, so might we also wrestle with the concept of a precreative God. How can anything be created so long as there is only a unity? For creation comes only by “Fission.” Somehow the precreative God must have embodied within its holy being both the male and female principles, those of “Fission” and Fusion.” If the divine thought of creating then somehow came into being, it would have precipitated the separation of the unity into these two principles. During the course of human descent, only the male “Fission” principle could be dominant. All growth on Earth comes from cell division, following the pattern “As Above, So Below.” Eve, the female principle of oneness or unity, had to withdraw quietly into the background, and human beings of the Judeo-Christian faith, or more broadly of the monotheistic religions, came to speak only of a Father God and his Son and Spirit. But the time has begun to dawn when the female principle, Eve, Sophia, the “Mother of God” both in the beginning (Prov 8,22) and in her reflection on Earth (Lk 1,27,42-43,46), will take dominion, when the “Fusion” enabled by earthly embodiment of the Christ Spirit within the human being must bring about the reascent, transformed, to the primal heavenly union—reunion. For this Christ prayed, Jn 17,11,20-23, and on the Cross gave himself up unto the divine, death-defying Mystery of union, Eph 1,9-10.

Fifth, the female principle never thereafter departed from the Christ, the creative Word, and from the Cross he directed Lazaruz/John to take it into “his own home” (Jn 19,26-27).

Sixth, as already indicated in item #25a, Adam and Eve are not said to have had any female children, nor is even Adam said to have had any until very late (Gen 5,4), suggesting a deeper meaning to the matter of their parentage of humanity. All surviving humanity is said to have come from Seth (Gen 5 et seq.; see also Luke’s genealogy [Lk 3,37-38] that jumps completely over Gen 4), even though the generations of Cain are given in Gen 4 and they are said to be the progenitors of “those who dwell in tents and have cattle” (vs 20), “those who play the lyre and pipe” (vs 21), and (implicitly) of those who forge “instruments of bronze and iron” (vs 22). Do these groups not preempt the major part of humanity, including those who are later said to have descended from Seth? Is it not significant that Philo, who so greatly influenced our New Testament writers (see “Egypt”), considered that Enoch, Methuselah and Lamech were descended from both Cain and Seth (see PHILO, pp. 132-151, at 136, “The Posterity and Exile of Cain” [40])?