Adam and Jesus...the "sons of God"

(If I say something that is right, then God has inspired me. If I say something that is wrong, then it is my own mistake.)

The genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3 ends with Adam being called the "son of God".

Christians understand that the term "son of God" in Adams case does not mean a "son" in the literal sense... but rather implies that Adam was a direct creation of God. The term "son of God" does not mean that Adam was in any way divine.

However, when the same term "son of God" is applied to Jesus, it is done so in a manner that suggests Jesus was divine. Jesus' birth was special in the sense he did not have a human father, but rather, was created directly in the womb of Mary... where he grew for 9 months and was born covered in blood like any other ordinary human.

Jesus and Adam are both unique human beings being direct creations of God. Both are called "the son of God" in the bible. Yet, Jesus is considered to be divine... whereas Adam is not.

One of the most important verses to consider when discussing the nature of Jesus are the ones about the angel who Mary encountered. Jesus' story begins with Mary, a human finding favor with God. When the angel spoke to her, he never said anything about her son being divine... let alone the son being part of a trinity or God himself as many Christians believe about Jesus. The angel did say he would be called "the son of God", but obviously in the same way as Adam... i.e - Not divine.

The fact that Adam is also called "son of God" nullifies the claim about Jesus being Gods "only begotten son" in John 3:16. The term "son of God" simply means a special creation of God. And nothing more.

Humans are not divine... and divinity is not born of humans. If Jesus is God, then it means Mary is the mother of God. And if Adam is not divine though he was created by God, then Jesus cant be divine because he was born of a human.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The similitude of Jesus before God is that of Adam; he created him from dust, then said to him: 'be': and he was. -3:59

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


BUT...

what if the human is not divine, yet the spirit within said human is?

Matthew 6:25
Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

reply to post by Akragon

what if the human is not divine, yet the spirit within said human is?

The spirit may be "divine" in origin. But that does not make the human body "divine".
Either way, God created both the body and the spirit.... and God is the only One who is divine.

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Jesus was teaching people not to be too attached to worldly things... but rather focus on God.
And Jesus continued...

"33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."

What If Jesus was Adam? :-)

Jesus has evolved into the light. He is our light that shines in the darkness so we can see clearly. :-) thats pretty divine. Lol

I love these threads

I am new to Christianity so cannot offer much, if any input, but I love sitting and watching the debate.

What if Jesus nor Adam were divine?

Which is most likely to be the case...



'But these books say they were real!'

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

God created both the body and the spirit.... and God is the only true thing that is divine.

IF God created both... would they both not be divine?

Are the leaves on the trees, the mountians, the birds and all the rest of the world not part of creation and thus divine?

And Jesus continued...

Whup... You missed a few verses my friend

Oh ye of little Faith

jkjk!!

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

reply to post by Akragon

IF God created both... would they both not be divine?

The creation is not the same as the creator.
Something being of divine origin (the design of the human body and the spirit) is not the same as being divine.

Again, the rest of the verses you quoted (26-30) teaches one not to be too attached to the physical world.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Is the creation "created" from nothing or created OF the creator?

In the beginning there was God and nothing else apparently...

Science says everything started from one singilarity... correct?

I'm not religious so I want to preface by starting there.. I think in biblical terms however that it is only saying that Adam is the son of God, the first man made in his creator's image.. if you believe in a creator then we would all be the sons and daughters of that creator.. divine or not.

With that said.. I don't believe in a creator

reply to post by Akragon


I just LOVE your thinking.... I really do. I know Ive told you before but I always do enjoy reading your words.

I mostly agree with your line of thinking and sometimes I find myself a student of yours, reading your thoughts and wondering... Hmmm.. Thats a good way to look at that. :-)

I like to think of God as an image of myself, only much greater. The absolute cause, if you will.

Spiritual evolution is where its at for me.... This is how I view Jesus. The ONE that has reached the top of the pyramid. The one who has reached " enlightenment". If I could think of a better term I would.

We may all be sons and daughters but it is he who is showing and guiding us to "the way".... Guiding us with his Light.

reply to post by Akragon

Is the creation "created" from nothing or created OF the creator?

Lets say you build yourself a table from materials that you own.

Is that table made of the same essence as you... just because you built it?
Or were you simply in a position to build a table because you owned the materials and knew how to make a table?

My point is all of reality is Gods property. God creates as He pleases.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


We are not the creator though, we're only a part of him...

We are the part of him experiencing this reality...

IF everything is connected as the theory goes... that Table is still part of the whole...no?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Adam was a son of God. Any direct creation of God is a "son". Jesus was the only "begotten" Son of the Father. All other men are "sons of Adam".

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Well I don't think Adam was begotten because he was created from dust (supposedly) and not from a womb. However the term: Adj. 1 begotten - (of offspring) generated by procreation. Does imply that God had sex with Mary. I would have to see the word in the original greek to see if there is a better translation then that. Unless that is what they are implying, which opens up a whole other can of worms.

The revelation of Jesus revealed to Mary also included....

Luke 1

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins.

The revelation given to Joseph included...

Matthew 1

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


This is a very interesting topic. For me, the answer is within the nature of what an image is. I've been covering this topic for the last few months it seems. I continue to drift in my thoughts by synchronicity and this idea keeps being refined in my mind.

Consider what Genesis 1 is all about by considering that Word is the primary unmanifest and Matter is what is manifest by the Word. One is hidden and one is seen. When you look at an oak tree, you are seeing a unique form from an archetype in word. We know the difference between a horse and a bird because each is a unique archetype. Adam is the image, but the Son of God is the archetype.

If you look in a mirror, you are seeing your image, yet you know who you are. The image is what you are now. This means something very significant when considering this verse.

1 Colossians 1:

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

If we consult Hermes and the Corpus Hermeticum, he gives us the ultimate answer to this. The best book to order is called The Way of Hermes. It's a very good English translation. I was just reading it a few minutes ago. The entire book covers this very broad territory. For Hermes, the Son is the Cosmos or macrocosm. Man is the microcosm copy of the Cosmos.

In the Hebrew tradition, Adam Kadmon was the primal man and a complete picture of the universe itself. The Adam soul contained all souls. Like our view of God's spirit being paired with our soul, God and the Son are one. When we place our soul with Christ, we are essentially putting humpty dumpty back together again with Christ. Jesus was the path to the church and the church is the body of Christ. Symbolically, we are returning to unity from multiplicity. The Vesica Piscis is the square root of 2, or a ratio of 1:1.415, or the number 153. This irrational number represents what Pythagoras called the measure of the fish. Two intersecting circles make the Vesica Pisces and many intersecting circles make up a picture of the Cosmos and humanity.

When Peter and the disciples were fishing, the risen Jesus was spotted on the shore. They were not catching anything so Jesus told Peter to cast his net on the "Right" side of the boat. The correct side of truth is the reflection of the two twins of religion. One is a mirror of the other. One is truth and the other is a counterfeit image. By telling them to fish on the right side of the boat, he was telling Peter (Rome and the Church) to shift his position to giving rather than receiving. They then caught 153 fish, symbolizing the movement from multiplicity to unity. After this, Jesus asked Peter this:

15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter,“Simon son of John, do you love (Agape/Divine Love) me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love (Phileo/Friendly love) you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love (Agape) me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love (Phileo) you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”


17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love (PHILEO) me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love (PHILEO) me?”

He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (PHILEO) you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.

18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

Notice that true love is Agape, not simply a Phileo love. How do we show this to God? We must give. Why did he ask him three times? The sign of Jonah is Jesus in the belly of the whale. This is symbolic of three days, or three thousand years, to raise the temple again. Each of the thousand years, Peter is asked to face the correct direction with truth.

What was given by Christ so that the Cosmos could share souls with others? Jesus was sacrificed for our ability to find salvation from the image back to unity with God. Jesus is the soul that was broken to make this happen. It happened before time began. Our symbols point us back again to the central story of mankind. Adam was the father and Jesus was the firstfruits of what is to come when unity once again repeats the circle.

Remember, there are twins. If Adam was broken, so was another soul of evil. There is a mirror involved with good and evil to be in balance. There are two fathers according to Jesus. There is the Father and there is the father.

As Christ is, so will we be. It's not about us, but about what has been done for us. Two must become one. Male and female must be united. Soul and spirit. Brothers must be rejoined in the family.

Originally posted by subject1145
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Well I don't think Adam was begotten because he was created from dust (supposedly) and not from a womb. However the term: Adj. 1 begotten - (of offspring) generated by procreation. Does imply that God had sex with Mary. I would have to see the word in the original greek to see if there is a better translation then that. Unless that is what they are implying, which opens up a whole other can of worms.

edit on 6-8-2012 by subject1145 because: semantics

edit on 6-8-2012 by subject1145 because: (no reason given)

You need a physical body to "have sex". She was made with child by the Holy Spirit who has no physical body.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by subject1145
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Well I don't think Adam was begotten because he was created from dust (supposedly) and not from a womb. However the term: Adj. 1 begotten - (of offspring) generated by procreation. Does imply that God had sex with Mary. I would have to see the word in the original greek to see if there is a better translation then that. Unless that is what they are implying, which opens up a whole other can of worms.

edit on 6-8-2012 by subject1145 because: semantics

edit on 6-8-2012 by subject1145 because: (no reason given)

You need a physical body to "have sex". She was made with child by the Holy Spirit who has no physical body.

I know I was demonstrating how a translation can be horribly misunderstood. I think that original texts should be directly translated by experts and not the translations we currently work with. Words mean many things, depending on context and intention. I would like to see a new direct translation of the bible from the oldest original works possible.

Originally posted by subject1145

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by subject1145
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Well I don't think Adam was begotten because he was created from dust (supposedly) and not from a womb. However the term: Adj. 1 begotten - (of offspring) generated by procreation. Does imply that God had sex with Mary. I would have to see the word in the original greek to see if there is a better translation then that. Unless that is what they are implying, which opens up a whole other can of worms.

edit on 6-8-2012 by subject1145 because: semantics

edit on 6-8-2012 by subject1145 because: (no reason given)

You need a physical body to "have sex". She was made with child by the Holy Spirit who has no physical body.

I know I was demonstrating how a translation can be horribly misunderstood. I think that original texts should be directly translated by experts and not the translations we currently work with. Words mean many things, depending on context and intention. I would like to see a new direct translation of the bible from the oldest original works possible.

NKJV. Trust no translation from any of the Alexandrian minor mss or the Westcott and Hort text.

ETA... also when dealing with things from antiquity especially paper "older = better" could be a recipe for disaster. Example, which manuscript would you think would stand the test of time? Manuscript A which was heavily used and needed to be recopied every 60-100 years or manuscript B which for the most part sat on a shelf and was rarely used?