Were Adam and Eve Jewish?

[Dorothea]

No.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I didn't give much thought to it till this morning....what an awesome study.

Were they?

No, but they were created as Adam, son of God of the human being kind.
They are the first two persons in the Adam name. They died as sons of God and all the living seed named "Adam kind"died in the loins of the firstborn Adam, and the "Eve/Life" mothered no living sons of God, because all the seed the female Adam gave birth to were dead, and were not living sons of God of the human being kind,.

All the Adam seed who come into their Adam being by the Adam spirit are dead in the Adam spirit and dead in the Adam flesh, as sons of God; and the Adam souls come forth in ruin and in vanity, with no hope for returning to the first estate of the Adam creation, in the Adam being.

But the first Adam persons were given temporary clothing to cover the shame of the loss of the Glory and the ruin of the Adam temple, and were promised the regeneration of their bodies into the Image of the Seed of the Woman who was to come, and who would undo the work of sin in their beings by His death, and Life.

The New Man is come, and He is a Jew by reverse adoption, and His New Name is Israel, the Savior promised as the Stone -the Seed- which would crush the head of the serpent/ =Satan is the head- and give Life to the captives of corruption in His New Man name.

 

[JohnRabbit]

It started by comments in another thread...and that got me to thinkin.....

In the beginning Adam and Eve were pleasing to God, before the fall. They were children of God. Just wondering about the roots of Jewishness, and what it means to be "righteous" with God.

put these verses together and you will understand how to be righteous with God.

Genesis 7:1(NKJV)
1Then the Lord said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.

Psalms 119:172(NKJV)
172 My tongue shall speak of Your word, For all Your commandments are righteousness.

John 15:10(NKJV)
10If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

1 Corinthians 7:19(NKJV)
19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

put these verses together and you will understand how to be righteous with God.

Genesis 7:1(NKJV)
1Then the Lord said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.

Psalms 119:172(NKJV)
172 My tongue shall speak of Your word, For all Your commandments are righteousness.

John 15:10(NKJV)
10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

1 Corinthians 7:19(NKJV)
19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

But do the Jews of today understand it

http://www.christianforums.com/t7576320/#post57988913
Paul the Circumciser (Acts 16v3)

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, in answer to the OP.

 

[PaladinValer]

I didn't give much thought to it till this morning....what an awesome study.

Were they?

No.

A Jew is a person who not only is either a descendant of the Hebrew people (specifically, of Judah's lineage, although Abraham is considered the Patriarch of the Hebrew people) or is adopted into it (by circumcision) AND is one who follows the entire 613 laws of the Torah (thereby practices the religion of Judaism).

Since there wasn't the Torah yet and Abraham had yet been born, they couldn't be Jews.

Well, from my view there are two sides. There is the religious part of it and there is the nationality part of it. And here is where it gets wierd. You can be Jewish, ethnically, but not religiously. That is where the Humanistic Jews come into play. But you cannot be Jewish religiously without being Jewish ethnically, as you have to be a descendant of the Isrealite nation, which mean you would have to be a direct descendent of Abraham, but more specifically, Jacob.

The Law of Return stipulates that only Jews make immigrate (aliyah) to Israel and obtain automatic citizenship. To quote their laws, "The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law, 5712-1952***, as well as the rights of an oleh under any other enactment, are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion."

Thus, a Jew must be one who practices the religion of Judaism to qualify. A person who changes his or her religion, though he or she may qualify due to descent, is not a Jew because that person doesn't adhere to Judaism.

No. Neither was Abraham but he was the 1st Hebrew.

Judaism, or being Jewish, is a religion and not a race.

Agreed on the first part without question.

In a way, Judaism is a "quazi-ethnic" religion, not entirely unlike Zoroastrianism in many respects. Judaism actually discourages converts, although does accept them into via circumcision, thereby adding them to the "family".

Jew is a believer in Judaism and a Gentile is not Jew.

Agreed.

 

[SolomonVII]

Thank you for your response. Is being "Jewish" just being a nationality, or is there more to it?

Jew derives from the name "Judah".
Judah, the third? son of Jacob(renamed Israel) and Leah, was the ancestor of the Judean tribe, otherwise known as the Jews. Along with his brothers, (or half-brothers, or the sons of those half-brothers), these descendants of Jacob became the twelve tribes of the nation of Israel that Moses and Joshua delivered to the land that God promised to Abraham centuries before.

The nation of Israel split into two after Solomon's rule, and the ten northern tribes became dispersed to the corners of the earth by the Assyrians, and for all accounts became lost to history.

The smaller tribe of Benjamin for the most part became merged into Judah, and this is the people that has become known as the Jews. It is short for Judean.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I didn't give much thought to it till this morning....what an awesome study.

Were they?

Assuming they are historical persons, nope. And the biblical text doesn't suggest they were.

A Jew is a descendent of Jacob, an Israelite, and more importantly one who follows the religion of Judaism (and one who becomes a member of the Jewish community is corporately part of the same Jewish family regardless of their ethnos).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Interesting...although what I would say is that Adam/Eve were the prototype for how the Lord always meant man to be. That the Lord happened to choose others from a certain ethnic group in the future doesn't mean how that group was is how Adam/Eve were since there were already differing Torah's throughout the ages--and what was given to the Jews spiritually/physically (especially in terms of Law) was not the same as what was given to other groups (i.e. Abraham, Noah, etc) or other Gentiles outside of the Jewish culture who the Lord was upon.

Perhaps it'd be best to say that being Jewish is an aspect of who the Lord is..and in that sense, Adam and Eve were Jewish...but on the same token, they'd also be Gentile since the Lord's heart was also shown within those cultures. "Sanctified" cannot be limited to an ethnic group biblically--and in Revelation 5:9 and Revelation 7:9, those praising the Lord will be an outgrowth of the multiculturalism that defines the heart of Christ.....

 

[brinny]

Interesting...although what I would say is that Adam/Eve were the prototype for how the Lord always meant man to be. That the Lord happened to choose others from a certain ethnic group in the future doesn't mean how that group was is how Adam/Eve were since there were already differing Torah's throughout the ages--and what was given to the Jews spiritually/physically (especially in terms of Law) was not the same as what was given to other groups (i.e. Abraham, Noah, etc) or other Gentiles outside of the Jewish culture who the Lord was upon.

Perhaps it'd be best to say that being Jewish is an aspect of who the Lord is..and in that sense, Adam and Eve were Jewish...but on the same token, they'd also be Gentile since the Lord's heart was also shown within those cultures. "Sanctified" cannot be limited to an ethnic group biblically--and in Revelation 5:9 and Revelation 7:9, those praising the Lord will be an outgrowth of the multiculturalism that defines the heart of Christ.....

What came to mind for me is what God said was "very good", in the beginning, before the fall of man. This included Adam and Eve. If God deemed His creation of them as "very good", this then shows a picture of what God had in mind in His "restoration" of man, through Jesus' sacrifice. It appears to come full circle, and is described as in this verse:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." ~Galatians 3:28

Adam and Eve were not Jewish. Neither was God. There was simply God the Creator, and Adam and Eve, His creation, of whom He said was "very good".

 

[PaladinValer]

Interesting...although what I would say is that Adam/Eve were the prototype for how the Lord always meant man to be.

Yes...and no.

It is true that Adam and Eve had truly free will. However, historically and anciently, Christianity has taught that, come the Second Advent, those who will experience heaven will not only return to the state that Adam and Eve had before the Fall, but go even further: a true transfiguration, not to lose their humanity or substance and essence, but for their Communion with God to always become closer and closer eternally.

That the Lord happened to choose others from a certain ethnic group in the future doesn't mean how that group was is how Adam/Eve were since there were already differing Torah's throughout the ages--and what was given to the Jews spiritually/physically (especially in terms of Law) was not the same as what was given to other groups (i.e. Abraham, Noah, etc) or other Gentiles outside of the Jewish culture who the Lord was upon.

This is a little hard to follow. According to both a literal reading of Genesis as well as the science of evolution, all humanity shares a common ancestor. Furthermore, Genesis 1 says all humanity was made in God's Image and Likeness, so it wasn't just one people, nation, etc, over any other.

Many Christians believed that God prepared non-Hebrews for the Gospel as well. In the traditional Requiem Mass, in the Dies Ire, it mentions both "David and the Sibyl," referring to the Sibylline Oracles. Even today in some Eastern Orthodox churches in their narthaxes, you might find Plato, and the Sybil is even on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. However, the fullest flower of this preparation is in Judaism, although it is still but a mere shadow.

Perhaps it'd be best to say that being Jewish is an aspect of who the Lord is..and in that sense, Adam and Eve were Jewish...but on the same token, they'd also be Gentile since the Lord's heart was also shown within those cultures.

As others have said, it is not possible, biblically or even under the Jewish understanding, for Adam and Eve to be Jews. Nor were they gentiles, for there were no Jews to contrast with!

Furthermore, God is not Jewish. God is God.

"Sanctified" cannot be limited to an ethnic group biblically--and in Revelation 5:9 and Revelation 7:9, those praising the Lord will be an outgrowth of the multiculturalism that defines the heart of Christ.....

This is true.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Adam and Eve were not Jewish. Neither was God. There was simply God the Creator, and Adam and Eve, His creation, of whom He said was "very good".

In many ways, it can be said that Adam/Eve were ALL of humanity at it's best. Of course, there's another curve ball that many may not wish to consider---and that one is whether or not Adam/Eve were the first to really exist.

As said best elsewhere:

In Romans 5 (and somewhat in 1 Corinthians 15), Paul draws an analogy between Adam and Jesus, both of whom are representative of humanity. Since Jesus is a historical figure, it is argued that Adam, too, must be a historical figure in the very same sense. The difficulty with this understanding of Paul, however, is that it is difficult to reconcile with the scientific data.

Historical Views

Another view sees humanlike creatures evolving as the scientific evidence indicates. But at a certain point in history, it is possible that God bestowed special spiritual gifts on those who had developed the necessary characteristics. This historical event would endow the recipients with the image of God. We can say that Homo divinus was therefore created from Homo sapiens. With these spiritual gifts came the ability to know and experience evil—an opportunity that was grasped with tragic consequences.


This view can fit whether the humans in question constituted a group or a specific male-female pair. In the case of a group, we can imagine that God interacted with all members of the group and essentially initiated the relationship that exists today. If the initiative was with a single human couple, then that relationship could spread to and through their offspring as that subset of the existing population came to dominate.... It is argued that bearing God’s image is not a matter of our physical appearance but a matter of our capacity to love both God and others, to have dominion over the earth, and to have moral consciousness. We are to image God (see our question on the "Image of God"). In this way we might distinguish between Homo sapiens and the image-bearing creatures that we might call Homo divinus..
​

For a better description, one can go here to the following:

• Denis Alexander, “How Does a BioLogos Model Need to Address the Theological Issues Associated with an Adam Who Was Not the Sole Genetic Progenitor of Humankind?” (Dec 2011)

Some are of the mindset that man evolved, to the point where the Lord bestowed upon him the image of God---thus making it possible for him to share links with others in the Primate family and yet be distinct when his intelligence underwent RADICAL changes.

And on the issue of man being related to apes, there'd be nothing wrong with this (In my opinion).

Secifically, Under the Scientific classification of Anthropoids:

Sub-Order: Anthropoidea,
Infra-Order: Catarrhine,
Super-family: Homonoidea,
Subfamily: Homininae,
Tribe: Hominini,
Species: Human.


​

The other "tribe" under Homininae is: Panini, Species: Chimpanzees. Humans are different for other primates in that we don't have an insulating layer of hair - allowing us to control body temperature through sweating. AND Our females go through a menopause sometime quite early in life, while other primates don't.

And this wouldn't be an issue for "Creationists" in any way..

Dr. Porsche built the original "Bebe" Renault, and the Economy models of the early Mercedes rear engine vehicles - AND the Volkswagens (in 1939). When one looks at the "guts" of the three (and of others he did) one can see a distinctive commonality of design, and similar features among all three - making it clear that the same "thought process" produced all three vehicles. BUT Nobody would try to prove that a Volkswagen was a "Bebe Renault" - but could easily demonstrate that the same "creator" was involved in both of 'em.


Some Christians think belief in evolution undermines the uniqueness of humankind and the reality of evil and the fall....but I disagree. For the Genesis account portrays Adam and Eve as Neolithic farmers. It is perfectly feasible that God bestowed His image on representative Homo sapiens already living in the Near East to generate what John Stott has called Homo divinus, those who first enjoyed personal fellowship with God but who then fell most terribly from their close walk with God (Genesis 3.8). All those who disobey God and trust in their own wisdom in place of God’s law reiterate the historical fall in their own being (Ezekiel 28.11-19).


I don't see anything wrong with advocating that God may've made two species that have similarities and may've indeed come from the same stock while choosing to impart one aspect of Himself into one of the groups to make them far superior/advanced than all others in creation.


Not too long ago, there was an article from BIO Logos I came across..and I thought it was intriguing when it came to discussing what's seen in Genesis and renconcilling that with Anthroplogy. For more:

• Adam and Eve: Literal or Literary? | The BioLogos Forum
• What Does “Image of God” Mean? Part 2 | The BioLogos" ​

• Models for Relating Adam and Eve with Contemporary Anthropology | The Bio"" ()​

What they offered seemed insightful and, IMHO, it does bring up an entirely different realm of conversation when considering Genesis and how God described the role of Man (as well as the Devil) and the story of creation all the way up to Genesis 6/the Flood.​

Although I think the story of Adam/Eve is literal, I think the interpretation of it often gets missed. Where scripture says "God made man from the Dust of the Ground", I've always been curious as to why many say its somehow impossible for the Lord to have made other species similar to man (i.e. apes, primates, etc) and then with man, breath his spirit into man....with the Gift of God's Spirit imparted being what set man apart.​

The text doesn't say that only having 4 fingers/thumbs is what makes man in the "Image of God"...as other creatures share similar genetic make-up on some parts & have the same body parts. Yet that doesn't mean that we're the same fully. If apes /other species and humans were 100% the same in all things, it'd definately place an entirely different spin on the film "Rise of the Planet of the Apes."​

​

​

Seeing the Film puts an enitrely DIFFERENT spin on what it means to be in a Zoo---and makes one wonder what would happen if indeed was the case that something was naturally able to develop that'd be against man. For animals have learned to use tools, as well as to communicate on high levels of intelligence/network...even using tools to do things. Though never on the level as man, there's no saying that it could not happen where intelligence/development grew enough where a threat to man's survival occurred. Of course, if that happened like in "Planet of the Apes, they I'd say Apes would be seen as another creation of the "Beasts of the Field" (Genesis 1:24-25)...and having to fight against other species evolving would be an extension of the mandate from God to "Have Dominion" (Genesis 1:26-31). ..with both connected and what's seen in anthropology with "common links"/similar actions kept in place...

Concerning the theory of men being related to "beasts", there's actually another theory that says one of the beasts of the field would be the Nephilim from Genesis 6:3-5/ Numbers 13:32-33 ......and that the Nephilim were a species of primate not made in the "Image of God." Many believe they were on a differing evolutionary route than the group of primate that Hashem placed his Spirit in to create man...with man being the one that the Lord chose to work with and the Nephlim being the leftovers who evolved over time. Many ponder over the possibility of the Nephilim being a species of proto-human..basically an unknown or primitive species of human....and others feel that perhaps the Nephilim from Genesis 6 were the result of men breeding with other primates/blending to create a race of giants. Either way, they were far less evolved than man..​

For more, one can go here:​

• Why Mylipin; / Myliypin; (Nephilim) - Michael S. Heiser
• Neanderthals | Reasons To Believe​
• Neanderthal Project​
• Neanderthal Nephilim?​
• GIANTS OF THE BIBLE​
• Who Were the Nephilim?​
• Cavemen Are People Too!​
• Neanderthal = Nephilim?​
• Nephilim - Michael S. Heiser ​
• Hugh Ross, ICR, and Facts of Science​
• Reasons To Believe - Were Hominids Human? ​
• Neanderthal and Nephilim - Are They the Same?​
• Neanderthal/human interbreeding - The Panda's Thumb​
• 2] Nephilim Skeletons Found, by Fred Harding, Tekline Publishing ...​
• Theory: Nephilim were Neanderthal man « Xenophilia (True Strange ...​
• Naked Archeologist Finds the Giants (Gen 6:4) « Josiah Concept ...​
• Neanderthals in Genesis? Read for the answer. | The Old Testament ...​

Other creatures being made outside of the Image of God as man was wouldn't mean that they don't have value or worth in the eyes of the Lord, as discussed more in-depth in #91 AND #92. For some articles discussing how men/apes are similar and yet distinct:​

• Human Y Chromosome: 'horrendously different' from Nearest Living "Relative" ...

 

[JohnRabbit]

Jew derives from the name "Judah".
Judah, the third? son of Jacob(renamed Israel) and Leah, was the ancestor of the Judean tribe, otherwise known as the Jews. Along with his brothers, (or half-brothers, or the sons of those half-brothers), these descendants of Jacob became the twelve tribes of the nation of Israel that Moses and Joshua delivered to the land that God promised to Abraham centuries before.

The nation of Israel split into two after Solomon's rule, and the ten northern tribes became dispersed to the corners of the earth by the Assyrians, and for all accounts became lost to history.

The smaller tribe of Benjamin for the most part became merged into Judah, and this is the people that has become known as the Jews. It is short for Judean.

well said!

from that, we should know that adam and eve were not jewish!

eos!

except... judah was the fourth born of israel.

Genesis 29:31-35(NKJV)
31When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.
32So Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben...33Then she conceived again and bore a son... And she called his name Simeon...34She conceived again and bore a son... his name was called Levi (the tribe from which moses descended, ergo, moses was not a jew!)...35And she conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Now I will praise the Lord.” Therefore she called his name Judah. Then she stopped bearing.

so, we can conclude, if you are born from the lineage of judah, then you are a jew.

again, eos.

 

[brinny]

Thanks for sharing as you did

In many ways, it can be said that Adam/Eve were ALL of humanity at it's best. Of course, there's another curve ball that many may not wish to consider---and that one is whether or not Adam/Eve were the first to really exist.

As said best elsewhere:

In Romans 5 (and somewhat in 1 Corinthians 15), Paul draws an analogy between Adam and Jesus, both of whom are representative of humanity. Since Jesus is a historical figure, it is argued that Adam, too, must be a historical figure in the very same sense. The difficulty with this understanding of Paul, however, is that it is difficult to reconcile with the scientific data.

Historical Views

Another view sees humanlike creatures evolving as the scientific evidence indicates. But at a certain point in history, it is possible that God bestowed special spiritual gifts on those who had developed the necessary characteristics. This historical event would endow the recipients with the image of God. We can say that Homo divinus was therefore created from Homo sapiens. With these spiritual gifts came the ability to know and experience evil—an opportunity that was grasped with tragic consequences.


This view can fit whether the humans in question constituted a group or a specific male-female pair. In the case of a group, we can imagine that God interacted with all members of the group and essentially initiated the relationship that exists today. If the initiative was with a single human couple, then that relationship could spread to and through their offspring as that subset of the existing population came to dominate.... It is argued that bearing God’s image is not a matter of our physical appearance but a matter of our capacity to love both God and others, to have dominion over the earth, and to have moral consciousness. We are to image God (see our question on the "Image of God"). In this way we might distinguish between Homo sapiens and the image-bearing creatures that we might call Homo divinus..
​

For a better description, one can go here to the following:

• Denis Alexander, “How Does a BioLogos Model Need to Address the Theological Issues Associated with an Adam Who Was Not the Sole Genetic Progenitor of Humankind?” (Dec 2011)

Some are of the mindset that man evolved, to the point where the Lord bestowed upon him the image of God---thus making it possible for him to share links with others in the Primate family and yet be distinct when his intelligence underwent RADICAL changes.

And on the issue of man being related to apes, there'd be nothing wrong with this (In my opinion).

Secifically, Under the Scientific classification of Anthropoids:

Sub-Order: Anthropoidea,
Infra-Order: Catarrhine,
Super-family: Homonoidea,
Subfamily: Homininae,
Tribe: Hominini,
Species: Human.


​

The other "tribe" under Homininae is: Panini, Species: Chimpanzees. Humans are different for other primates in that we don't have an insulating layer of hair - allowing us to control body temperature through sweating. AND Our females go through a menopause sometime quite early in life, while other primates don't.

And this wouldn't be an issue for "Creationists" in any way..

Dr. Porsche built the original "Bebe" Renault, and the Economy models of the early Mercedes rear engine vehicles - AND the Volkswagens (in 1939). When one looks at the "guts" of the three (and of others he did) one can see a distinctive commonality of design, and similar features among all three - making it clear that the same "thought process" produced all three vehicles. BUT Nobody would try to prove that a Volkswagen was a "Bebe Renault" - but could easily demonstrate that the same "creator" was involved in both of 'em.


Some Christians think belief in evolution undermines the uniqueness of humankind and the reality of evil and the fall....but I disagree. For the Genesis account portrays Adam and Eve as Neolithic farmers. It is perfectly feasible that God bestowed His image on representative Homo sapiens already living in the Near East to generate what John Stott has called Homo divinus, those who first enjoyed personal fellowship with God but who then fell most terribly from their close walk with God (Genesis 3.8). All those who disobey God and trust in their own wisdom in place of God’s law reiterate the historical fall in their own being (Ezekiel 28.11-19).


I don't see anything wrong with advocating that God may've made two species that have similarities and may've indeed come from the same stock while choosing to impart one aspect of Himself into one of the groups to make them far superior/advanced than all others in creation.


Not too long ago, there was an article from BIO Logos I came across..and I thought it was intriguing when it came to discussing what's seen in Genesis and renconcilling that with Anthroplogy. For more:

• Adam and Eve: Literal or Literary? | The BioLogos Forum​
• What Does “Image of God” Mean? Part 2 | The BioLogos" ​

• Models for Relating Adam and Eve with Contemporary Anthropology | The Bio"" ()​

What they offered seemed insightful and, IMHO, it does bring up an entirely different realm of conversation when considering Genesis and how God described the role of Man (as well as the Devil) and the story of creation all the way up to Genesis 6/the Flood.

Although I think the story of Adam/Eve is literal, I think the interpretation of it often gets missed. Where scripture says "God made man from the Dust of the Ground", I've always been curious as to why many say its somehow impossible for the Lord to have made other species similar to man (i.e. apes, primates, etc) and then with man, breath his spirit into man....with the Gift of God's Spirit imparted being what set man apart.


The text doesn't say that only having 4 fingers/thumbs is what makes man in the "Image of God"...as other creatures share similar genetic make-up on some parts & have the same body parts. Yet that doesn't mean that we're the same fully. If apes /other species and humans were 100% the same in all things, it'd definately place an entirely different spin on the film "Rise of the Planet of the Apes."

​

Seeing the Film puts an enitrely DIFFERENT spin on what it means to be in a Zoo---and makes one wonder what would happen if indeed was the case that something was naturally able to develop that'd be against man. For animals have learned to use tools, as well as to communicate on high levels of intelligence/network...even using tools to do things. Though never on the level as man, there's no saying that it could not happen where intelligence/development grew enough where a threat to man's survival occurred. Of course, if that happened like in "Planet of the Apes, they I'd say Apes would be seen as another creation of the "Beasts of the Field" (Genesis 1:24-25)...and having to fight against other species evolving would be an extension of the mandate from God to "Have Dominion" (Genesis 1:26-31). ..with both connected and what's seen in anthropology with "common links"/similar actions kept in place...

Concerning the theory of men being related to "beasts", there's actually another theory that says one of the beasts of the field would be the Nephilim from Genesis 6:3-5/ Numbers 13:32-33 ......and that the Nephilim were a species of primate not made in the "Image of God." Many believe they were on a differing evolutionary route than the group of primate that Hashem placed his Spirit in to create man...with man being the one that the Lord chose to work with and the Nephlim being the leftovers who evolved over time. Many ponder over the possibility of the Nephilim being a species of proto-human..basically an unknown or primitive species of human....and others feel that perhaps the Nephilim from Genesis 6 were the result of men breeding with other primates/blending to create a race of giants. Either way, they were far less evolved than man..​

For more, one can go here to the following:​

• Why Mylipin; / Myliypin; (Nephilim) - Michael S. Heiser
• Neanderthals | Reasons To Believe
• Neanderthal Project
• Neanderthal Nephilim?
• GIANTS OF THE BIBLE
• Who Were the Nephilim?
• Cavemen Are People Too!
• Neanderthal = Nephilim?
• Nephilim - Michael S. Heiser
• Hugh Ross, ICR, and Facts of Science
• Reasons To Believe - Were Hominids Human?
• Neanderthal and Nephilim - Are They the Same?
• Neanderthal/human interbreeding - The Panda's Thumb
• 2] Nephilim Skeletons Found, by Fred Harding, Tekline Publishing ...
• Theory: Nephilim were Neanderthal man « Xenophilia (True Strange ...
• Naked Archeologist Finds the Giants (Gen 6:4) « Josiah Concept ...
• Neanderthals in Genesis? Read for the answer. | The Old Testament ...

Other creatures being made outside of the Image of God as man was wouldn't mean that they don't have value or worth in the eyes of the Lord, as discussed more in-depth in #91 AND #92. For some articles discussing how men/apes are similar and yet distinct:

• Human Y Chromosome: 'horrendously different' from Nearest Living "Relative" ...

were apes somehow "stuck" in evolution, frozen in time? What happened? There should be no apes left. They should've evolved, like us, after all, they are/were, us, right?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yes...and no.

It is true that Adam and Eve had truly free will. However, historically and anciently, Christianity has taught that, come the Second Advent, those who will experience heaven will not only return to the state that Adam and Eve had before the Fall, but go even further: a true transfiguration, not to lose their humanity or substance and essence, but for their Communion with God to always become closer and closer eternally.

Shalom.

I'm aware of the concept (known as Theosis) that Adam and Eve are not necessarily where man is heading back to....just as Creation itself is not going to be made into an exact replica of how things used to be when the New Heavens and New Earth come into being. Rather, the Lord is taking us beyond where they were into a more glorious state just as He'll do with the rest of transformation....and for those saying that Adam/Eve were technically in a process of glorification that was hindered by the enemy, many have said that Theosis is essentially a restoration of the transformation of man into something great--a finished product that was not fully seen in Adam/Eve even though they were made perfect/good. In many ways, Adam/Eve were a snapshot of the process the Lord intended for mankind---but it was not the fullness thereof.

Thus, while Adam/Eve in the state they were in are not necessarily where the Lord desires man to be ultimately, they are the prototype in that they show what it means to be in process/development---and at that point where they were going actively after the Lord, we're to do likewise

This is a little hard to follow. According to both a literal reading of Genesis as well as the science of evolution, all humanity shares a common ancestor. Furthermore, Genesis 1 says all humanity was made in God's Image and Likeness, so it wasn't just one people, nation, etc, over any other.

I don't believe I said it was one people or nation over another, nor do I deny that all of humanity shares a common ancestor. To clarify, the ways the Lord revealed Himself to Abraham are not the same ways He revealed Himself to the people of Israel in the Mosaic Covenant, nor is the way He revealed Himself to Abraham the same as He revealed Himself to Noah/those prior to him. There were differing "Torah" (or requirements/laws) for each group...and in regards to how the Jews were given revelation by the Lord within the framework of His choosing Jewish people to speak/share His customs in, the Jewish package is not to be taken to indicate that the Lord Himself looks fully/acts fully like them only.

Essentially, as I've said elsewhere in #45 and #46 , just because the Lord happened to reveal Himself to Semitic groups with Hebrew Language and in terms they could understand does not mean that the Lord only looks like the vehicle He used to reflect Himself....for He used other cultures to reveal Himself as well/spoke in terms they could handle. His ways go beyond what other cultures may see..

Many Christians believed that God prepared non-Hebrews for the Gospel as well. In the traditional Requiem Mass, in the Dies Ire, it mentions both "David and the Sibyl," referring to the Sibylline Oracles. Even today in some Eastern Orthodox churches in their narthaxes, you might find Plato, and the Sybil is even on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. However, the fullest flower of this preparation is in Judaism, although it is still but a mere shadow.

More than ageree

As others have said, it is not possible, biblically or even under the Jewish understanding, for Adam and Eve to be Jews. Nor were they gentiles, for there were no Jews to contrast with!

Just because there were no Jews to contrast with does not mean that things they did---later reflected within the Jewish culture/laws--were not connected.

Furthermore, God is not Jewish. God is God.

No one denies God is God...but cultures can reflect aspects of the Lord---and NO culture comes into being with the Lord placing them there. This is something very key to what Paul noted in Acts 17 and other places

Acts 17:27-28
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[b] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[c]
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

were apes somehow "stuck" in evolution, frozen in time? What happened? There should be no apes left. They should've evolved, like us, after all, they are/were, us, right?

Personally, I'd say that apes/other humanids were simply at the peak of their development (for the time they're in)--with it being possible that the Lord chose to take part of the primate kind and make them into something more. This, of course, would not mean that development could not occur further with other species/sub-groups since even man has developed past the Creation state in intelligence/development of certain technologies and abilities...even adapting to differing environments. Those studying primates have noticed the same at differing levels, even though it's at a much lower level than man....and they don't necessarily look exactly the same as back in the day, just as man does not.

Some see things like evolution in the sense of divine guidance. Where others see random chance, many see the Lord choosing to "reboot" a system/cause a change just as Psalm 104:29-31 notes when it states that He renews the earth/its species.....bringing certain things about if He sees fit, whether that be further development or "freezing" something in place...or allowing something to continue to develop naturally but putting blocks up in its development (just as He did with man at the Tower of Babel and with the Flood, man's aging and ability to communicate greatly affected).

Only the Lord's spirit working in Us is what makes man able to do...and BE what He is above all other creations...and some have noted how the Nephilim (at certain levels) were actually what occurred when the angels began messing with mankind, not only mixing with them---but mixing mankind with lower species like apes and creating other groups like Neatherdals.

 

[brinny]

Personally, I'd say that apes/other humanids were simply at the peak of their development (for the time they're in)--with it being possible that the Lord chose to take part of the primate kind and make them into something more. This, of course, would not mean that development could not occur further with other species/sub-groups since even man has developed past the Creation state in intelligence/development of certain technologies and abilities...even adapting to differing environments. Those studying primates have noticed the same at differing levels, even though it's at a much lower level than man....and they don't necessarily look exactly the same as back in the day, just as man does not.

Some see things like evolution in the sense of divine guidance. Where others see random chance, many see the Lord choosing to "reboot" a system/cause a change just as Psalm 104:29-31 notes when it states that He renews the earth/its species.....bringing certain things about if He sees fit, whether that be further development or "freezing" something in place...or allowing something to continue to develop naturally but putting blocks up in its development (just as He did with man at the Tower of Babel and with the Flood, man's aging and ability to communicate greatly affected).

Only the Lord's spirit working in Us is what makes man able to do...and BE what He is above all other creations...and some have noted how the Nephilim (at certain levels) were actually what occurred when the angels began messing with mankind, not only mixing with them---but mixing mankind with lower species like apes and creating other groups like Neatherdals.

brother, brother, are you seeeerious?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

brother, brother, are you seeeerious?

sister, sister....As serious as you are in speculating about whether or not Adam and Eve (or God) are Jewish. If you don't believe in God being influential over nature--or take the stance that all aspects of evolution are not valid--that is your choice. However, disagreeing requires serious reasons as to why not...and dismissing it with "are you serious" is not the kind of response that really deals with a subject.

Or would you prefer that type of response to your OP --or the question you asked which I responded to? For I could have easily done so since much of it didn't really show a real understanding of some basics behind evolutionary thought (on a mirco level/species being able to adapt in time, depending on their limits, and not looking exactly as they did in the beginning).

 

[brinny]

As serious as you are in speculating about whether or not Adam and Eve (or God) are Jewish. If you don't believe in God being influential over nature--or take the stance that all aspects of evolution are not valid--that is your choice. However, disagreeing requires serious reasons as to why not...and dismissing it with "are you serious" is not the kind of response that really deals with a subject.

Or would you prefer that type of response to your OP?

i wasn't speculating about God being Jewish or Adam and Eve. I was interested in feedback.....in another thread earlier today, someone insinuated that God is Jewish.

 

[Incariol]

I didn't give much thought to it till this morning....what an awesome study.

Were they?

Nope. Most probably, they were African.