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

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Here is a superb quote from the wiki on Adam Kadmon:

Arius Didymus wrote in Concerning the Opinions of Plato:

"Ideas are certain patterns arranged class by class of the things which are by nature sensible, and that these are the sources of the different sciences and definitions. For besides all individual men there is a certain conception of man ... uncreated and imperishable.

And in the same way as many impressions are made of one seal, and many images of one man, so from each single idea of the objects of sense a multitude of individual natures are formed, from the idea of man all men, and in like manner in the case of all other things in nature.

Also the idea is an eternal essence, cause, and principle, making each thing to be of a character such as its own."

reply to post by NOTurTypical

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".

If Jesus was the "begotten" son of the Father and if you believe Jesus is God, then does it makes Mary the "mother of God". Is this what you believe?

Only humans depend on a woman to "beget" a son... not God. Jesus was created as a child for Mary.. not as a son for God. He can only be called "son of God" in the same way as Adam.

reply to post by Deetermined

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

Even if Jesus were to reign over the house of Jacob "forever", that does not change the fact that Jesus was announced as a human son born to Mary.

Also, theres a good chance that it is symbolic language being used... Kind of like Abraham being told that his descendants would multiply "beyond number, like the stars in the sky"

and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

You do realize that a lot of Hebrew names end with -el, right?
Ezekiel = "God will strengthen"
Ishmael = "God hears"

So the name "Immanuel" does not suggests that Jesus was literally God.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

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".

If Jesus was the "begotten" son of the Father and if you believe Jesus is God, then does it makes Mary the "mother of God". Is this what you believe?

Only humans depend on a woman to "beget" a son... not God. Jesus was created as a child for Mary.. not as a son for God. He can only be called "son of God" in the same way as Adam.

The Son added humanity at the incarnation. He already pre-existed as divinity. He met with Abraham face to face in Genesis 18.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So do you believe Mary was the "mother of God"?

The Son added humanity at the incarnation. He already pre-existed as divinity. He met with Abraham face to face in Genesis 18.

I think I must have missed something.... but where exactly does it say anything about the son "adding humanity at the incarnation"? Im reading from verses specific to his birth... and it simply says that Jesus was a son being born to Mary.

As for Genesis 18, it does not say it was a pre-existent Jesus... thats your speculation. The 3 men could have been angels.

reply to post by MamaJ

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

Hmmm...

I prefer to think of him as the son of God, sent to show us how God wants us to act in this reality... i think he also had to learn how to live with us as well... and made his mistakes along the way...

What you're discribing feels more like a buddha or Krishna... they were also great teachers, but Jesus was the man...

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I don't think I would call her "the mother of God", that to me would imply she pre-existed God. I think her womb was used to bring the Son of God into the world. And see Phillippeans 2:7. And two are identified as angels, the third is clearly identified as "God".

The image is the sun (son) of God. The image that is seen presently is Gods creation. Christ is the light of consciousness, the wakefulness with light - the image that is seen. This image right here and right now is the light (sun/son) of God.
But man does not see this pure image that God has created, man does not like it enough - man wants more.
Man has words that decieve him into believing there is more than this present image. The words tell of past and future but they only do it now, presently.
Right now there is light, there is only light in the present. This moment is Christ (the light of consciousness) and through this moment the father can be found. The father cannot be found in 'the past' or 'the future' because they are not real - only now is real. To look to the future to find the father is madness, to look to the past to find the father is also madness.
Only through this moment (Christ said 'me') can the father be found.
The image is the creation of God and the one that sees and knows this image is God - everpresently.

youtu.be...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

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

Big trouble in Little Egypt now. No body, then no semen, then no DNA to contribute.

Jesus was either missing half his DNA, which would not work well. Can't call that conception.

Or, since there was no god DNA involved, then he was not a Son of god.


Since there was no DNA from god external to Mary, then Mary had to be god to have a son of god.

Then, back to Goddess worshiping.


Oh what a tangled web is conceived, when they practice to deceive.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Colossians 2:8-10

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Regarding the New Jerusalem as outlined in Revelation 21:

22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Now let's look at Revelation 22:

3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Notice that Revelation 22:3 says that HIS servants shall serve HIM. It does not say that THEIR servants will serve THEM.

God and the Lamb, Jesus, will share the throne together, as one.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by MamaJ

 

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

Hmmm...

I prefer to think of him as the son of God, sent to show us how God wants us to act in this reality... i think he also had to learn how to live with us as well... and made his mistakes along the way...

What you're discribing feels more like a buddha or Krishna... they were also great teachers, but Jesus was the man...

Thats because I see truth in everything in regards to religious and or spiritual texts, or so I think.

For me... Jesus has reached the goal we are trying to obtain. This is why he is the way, the truth, and the light in the Bible and other texts. He is the son of man and also the son of God. We too I feel are the sons and daughters of God. An image of God, one who experiences for God is who I think we are. If we want to achieve spiritual evolution to the fullest we must follow Jesus in the way he treated others.

When I think of the entire picture I see via space and all its wonders Im left with amazement! Jesus is our light that shines through the darkness of all things, matter included and when the day comes for spiritual completion the soul will transform and there will be no more reincarnation for said soul. The veil will be lifted, in other words. Its just my view.... Not right or wrong, just another opinion to throw into the mix.

I dont think any of us hold the absolute truth, however Jesus did/ does. His words tell me more than any other character in the Bible as to how to live and how to treat others by doing what he has done/ did. Showing his love through sacrifice was the utmost important part because it was not just words..... He showed with his actions, his love for his brother. He also loved people, no matter their difference. He was sooo sweet and kind to the " sinner". How many people will hang out with a prostitute and love them even though their life style is different? I just cant think of many people who would in this day and age, much less back in the days of Jesus.

Scholars have unanswered questions and we are no different. There is a lot written in the Bible I shrug off as mans word and not gods. Why? Just doesnt feel like the God I have in my heart. Some call it cherry picking while I call it deciphering.

I agree whole heartedly though.... Jesus is the man. :-)

reply to post by MagnumOpus


That's why the virgin birth is considered a miracle.

Btw, He had no trouble creating Adam with full DNA, I'm sure He didn't forget how to do it.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Jesus and Adam are both unique human beings being direct creations of God.

The Gospels say Jesus had parents, and a father, meaning Joseph.
There is a such thing as artificial insemination, and this is what the spirit was probably doing, since it never says that Jesus did not genetically come from Joseph.
A genealogy is a description of a person's genetic, biological background, and the two in the Gospels both point to Jesus' as coming through Joseph.
The sonship of Jesus was something established in heaven before he was born as the baby Jesus and is not dependent on the circumstances of that birth, other than he was the same person that he was before.

reply to post by jmdewey60

A genealogy is a description of a person's genetic, biological background, and the two in the Gospels both point to Jesus' as coming through Joseph.
The sonship of Jesus was something established in heaven before he was born as the baby Jesus and is not dependent on the circumstances of that birth, other than he was the same person that he was before.

Yet, for some reason... David is described in the bible as "father of Jesus".
Though Jesus was created by God directly in Marys womb... he is presented as being a "descendant" of David.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

A genealogy is a description of a person's genetic, biological background, and the two in the Gospels both point to Jesus' as coming through Joseph.
The sonship of Jesus was something established in heaven before he was born as the baby Jesus and is not dependent on the circumstances of that birth, other than he was the same person that he was before.

Yet, for some reason... David is described in the bible as "father of Jesus".
Though Jesus was created by God directly in Marys womb... he is presented as being a "descendant" of David.

Because of Mary. Her and Joseph were both of the house of David.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

That's why the virgin birth is considered a miracle.

Btw, He had no trouble creating Adam with full DNA, I'm sure He didn't forget how to do it.

The adam story works well with the Anu Creator god theme, and both male and female blending happened there.

Mary appears nothing to do with that physical blinding theme. The explanation with the Mary theme is one of allegorical speaking. Mary was an Essene and pure of religious mind and the immaculate concepts for the child Jesus was their plan to make a Messiah, using much of the old astrology and signs of Egypt.

Just like with Adam, there was no spirit that made Adam from dirt. Just some breeding experiments.

Mary and Joseph worked fine with the normal process for pregnancy, and the allegorical speaking was used and mistranslated into these fantasy games that you like to promote.

Which didn't happen with Adam, and didn't happen with Jesus.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


Of course it happened with Adam. There was no male DNA in the dirt before Adam was formed from it's dust.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

A genealogy is a description of a person's genetic, biological background, and the two in the Gospels both point to Jesus' as coming through Joseph.
The sonship of Jesus was something established in heaven before he was born as the baby Jesus and is not dependent on the circumstances of that birth, other than he was the same person that he was before.

Yet, for some reason... David is described in the bible as "father of Jesus".
Though Jesus was created by God directly in Marys womb... he is presented as being a "descendant" of David.

Because of Mary. Her and Joseph were both of the house of David.

And Mary and Joseph were both the parents for Jesus, not a Spirit with no DNA.

The Mary and Joseph story is an allegorical one with poor translations. One can see in the stars the time coming for a king to be born and the want of a Messiah to come. All the Essene Parents did was follow the celestial signs, conceive a child for higher purpose in life, such is an immaculate idea or conception for a child. Mary was pure of religous understanding and unspoiled by the Pharisee or the Babylon teachings, so called Virgin was not about her sexual status.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


Joseph was not the father of Jesus. The "sign" from heaven that He was the Messiah was that a virgin would give birth. It's in now way whatsoever a sign for a young woman to give birth the old fashioned way.. that's happened billions of times.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

Joseph was not the father of Jesus. The "sign" from heaven that He was the Messiah was that a virgin would give birth. It's in now way whatsoever a sign for a young woman to give birth the old fashioned way.. that's happened billions of times.

Sure you don't want to include a deal on the Brooklyn Bridge while you are selling this one?

Jesus appears to have an older brother, James, and that didn't make Mary a Virgin.

Ever now and then, Catholic Nuns turn up pregnant. Those sound like Virgin deals too, but nobody in the church buys that story either.


Semiramus claimed the spirit of Nimrod got her pregnant and along came Tammuz, and the whole world said that was bogus non-sense. Even the Essene. Then, you want to tell us the Essene would come along and try to make the same faked up magic for Jesus. That just won't hold water in a logical thinkers mind.


The Essene were big on Astronomy and they saw this constellation line up coming for a long time in advance, so they decided to use that to make a prophecy happen. A few embellished words, the message spreads that a Messiah is to be borm, and Magi come looking. Shortly after all have to run off to Egypt to keep the kid alive.

newsinfo.iu.edu...

Finally, on June 17, 2 B.C., Jupiter and Venus, the two brightest objects in the night sky except for the moon, came so close that their disks appeared to touch. This exceptionally rare event could not have been missed by observers such as the Wise Men.

------

Apparently the Star of Bethlehem was noticed only by the Wise Men. There is no mention of a star in Luke's description of an angel announcing the birth of Jesus to shepherds in a field. According to Matthew, when the Wise Men arrived in Jerusalem they asked Herod, "Where is he who is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east and have come to worship him."

Nothing in here about Virgins, just constellations and Kings.


Only a pious Essene Priestiss and a pious old Essene Priest conceived of the idea to have Jesus, both pure and pious of religion, translated from clean and pure (virgin).

You defame Jesus and his parents with your attempt to rebuild Semaramis nonsense into the Jesus story.