Were Adam and Eve Jewish?

[Gxg (G²)]

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

One must wonder what man called themselves in the OT prior to Abraham or the Tower of Babel when man was monolithic in culture overall..for most likely, that's what they would've been.

 

[brinny]

I believe man was made in the image of God, as it is written, and that God made animals, after their kind.

 

[PaladinValer]

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.

1. Theosis goes further - it is truly entering into a oneness of the Energies of God (not the SUBSTANCE, of course, or that would rob us of our "very good" creation as human beings, and that wouldn't make sense, not to mention it would be blasphemous) and eternally going deeper and deeper into that oneness without ever (!) losing our humanity.
2. I agree, entirely actually, with your statement that Adam and Eve were a "snapshot" of the process, especially when Jesus is prefigured as the Tree of Life.

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

Now that you explain it that way, I'm inclined to agree.

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.

Are you suggesting Covenant Theology? It does sound like it a bit.

Essentially, as I've said elsewhere, 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.

I'm not sure I can entirely agree. I believe Judaism was to be the light to the world, however shadowy. The Jews were "chosen" to be bearers of that light, so there is a specific benefit Jews have over gentiles, as St. Paul said.

Of course, also as St. Paul says, that is their greatest hurdle as well.

That being said, God is the Source of all truth, and where there is truth, there is Life and Light. Islam is truthful in saying monotheism is correct. Buddhism is truthful when it says compassion is vital. Even Socrates, truly an Atheist, is truthful in his logic about "the Good." And if we look in St. C. S. Lewis' Last Battle in his Chronicles of Narnia, we see how that truth might and can work it.

So is God behind it? Dunno. I have absolutely no clue because I'm not Him; all I know is what is the fullness of truth and I adhere to that. I do however know that any acknowledgement of truth is a good thing, and to act and live based on it is a good thing. These are shadows however, but shadows are not lightless, and it is only up to the Light if these poor shadows will be saved (not my job to decide or, even worse, to judge...if I'm wrong, I'm toast!).

More than agreed

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.

]

Connected? Sure. But Judaism is about all 613. Now I'd go so far as to say they were proto-Jews as they did have a covenant; the first of many covenants that will eventually end up as the 613 laws, but to call them Jews is way too much of a stretch.

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]
​

If that is what you meant, then yes...yet still no. If you mean all are in God's Image and Likeness, of course we agree. Yet at the same time, no one people or group can fully express the entirety of God for God is infinite. It would take all creation...and more...infinitely more! Yet in the same that each does have something of the grand scheme, oh absolutely; I just merely emphasize the infinite as much as the diversity that is there.

Good old fashioned Cappadocian "Light and Darkness" theology

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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.

A thread you made here #5 where you said you were wondering on the issue of whether or not God was Jewish based/thinking on it. It would not have been difficult for someone to say "What kind of silly question is this? Why would you even write on it or be thinking on it?"--but the reality is that respectful dialouge, regardless of what one thinks on the question itself or things stated, is what is expected. And with that said, again, the same is said here. If you personally disagree with the concept of evolution in certain areas, that is not a problem. However, saying "Are you serious" in dismissal doesn't give a real addressment of information nor does it really give anything in way of showing one understands a concept in science.

I believe man was made in the image of God, as it is written, and that God made animals, after their kind.

I agree-as said before. All creatures were made from the DUST of the ground, including every beast of the field (Genesis 1). It's no surprise then to see how some things with DNA are similar and traits seem familar---but being made in the Image of the Lord is what makes man unique above all others..and that has nothing to do with having no connection with other species already there, nor does it mean that intelligence/potential to develop it is only a trait reserved for man. animals would still be after their own kind and nothing I said went against that....and many respectable theologians/Christian scientists have noted that for ages--and for good reference on it:

• Evidence for God from Science: Christian ApologeticsA Scientific and Biblical Response to "Up from the Apes. Remarkable New Evidence Is Filling in the Story of How We Became Human"

If you disagree, by all means one is free to show their reasons why



For myself, as said best by another ministry known as "God and Science" in their article, "Must Human Evolution Contradict Genesis?" ( ):

..Cyril Vollert suggests in his Symposium on Evolution (1959) that evolution theory might integrate with Scripture if God directly infused the human spiritual soul into a fully adult subhuman primate. Such transformation would instantly change the entire material organization of that primate into true man. Vollert also proposes that this radical change might have taken place at the embryonic level. In that case, subhuman primates would not be the real parents of Adam, since his direct creation as a human being, though using evolved embryonic material principles, would be the work of God, who alone can create the spiritual human soul as well as raise matter to the level of this qualitatively higher new species. Even subhuman primates might readily rear such “offspring” as their own. This new species could then separate from the prior subhuman stock in the manner described above.

​

Legitimate, IMHO. I think being made in the "Image of GOD" isn't about having nothing in common with the animals as much as it is about being a NEW Kind of Animal, as man is both SPIRIT AND Body. That's radically different than anything else God has made in creation. God was very creative when he made man-kind--but whether he made man through evolutionary means or made man out of nothing, what matters is that man is special. He is truly of God's Kind.....

But on the issue of species having a limited amount of adaptability, here's something from what the scholars behind the ESV Study Bible said on the issue. In their words:

Should Genesis 1 be called a “scientific account”? Again, it is crucial to have a careful definition. Does Genesis 1 record a true account of the origin of the material universe? To that question, the answer must be yes. On the other hand, does Genesis 1 provide information in a way that corresponds to the purposes of modern science? To this question the answer is no. Consider some of the challenges. For example, the term “kind” does not correspond to the notion of “species”; it simply means “category,” and could refer to a species, or a family, or an even more general taxonomic group. Indeed, the plants are put into two general categories, small seed-bearing plants and larger woody plants. The land animals are classified as domesticable stock animals (“livestock”); small things such as mice, lizards, and spiders (“creeping things”); and larger game and predatory animals (“beasts of the earth”). Indeed, no species, other than man, gets its proper Hebrew name. Not even the sun and moon get their ordinary Hebrew names (1:16). The text says nothing about the process by which “the earth brought forth vegetation” (1:12), or by which the various kinds of animals appeared—although the fact that it was in response to God’s command indicates that it was not due to any natural powers inherent in the material universe itself. (p. 44)

INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS — Genesis and Science — The purpose of Genesis
The primary purpose of Genesis 1 seems to be to identify God as the Creator of everything who is completely separate from the creation, and to contrast him to the gods who appear in the creation accounts of the nations the Hebrews had contact with.

This account is well cast for its main purpose, which was to enable a community of nomadic shepherds in the Sinai desert to celebrate the boundless creative goodness of the Creator; it does not say why, e.g., a spider is different from a snake, nor does it comment on what genetic relationship there might be between various creatures. At the same time, when the passage is received according to its purpose, it shapes a worldview in which science is at home (probably the only worldview that really makes science possible). This is a concept of a world that a good and wise God made, perfectly suited for humans to enjoy and to rule. The things in the world have natures that people can know, at least in part. Human senses and intelligence are the right tools for discerning and saying true things about the world. (The effects of sin, of course, can interfere with this process.) (p. 44)
​

Just a thought. The subject of "kinds" not equating to "species" is something that often comes up when it comes to the issue of Creationism vs Evolution. Many admit that "kind" does not mean "species," but a larger grouping, and this is only after they are brought forth or evolved by the earth according to Genesis 1. Genesis 7-8 with the flood is also something that comes to mind. Others feel it would be better to translate "kind" as "all sorts of" ..like saying all sorts of plants and animals were brought forth from the earth. ..and with that said, I don't think it's against scripture to say that there were other species we were made similar to even though we're distinct from them---just as peacocks are different from eagles and eagles are different from penguins. Different species, yet within the same kind (birds)......and likewise, it could be the same with Men/apes. Man is in a class by himself, being made in the Image of God, even though he is within the species of primates alongside apes..

For more info, one can go online/investigate the following under their respective title at their own leisure:

• "Naturalistic Biological Change and the Bible -God and Science" ( )

• "Ligers and wholphins? What next? - Creation Ministries International" ()

• "Biblical Kind - Theistic Evolution - Faith and Science are Compatible" ()

• "Does Old-Earth Creationism Contradict Genesis 1?: A Rebuttal to Terry Mortenson's Article “Evolution vs. Creation: the Order of Events Matters” - God and Science" ( )

 

[brinny]

A thread you made here #5 where you said you were wondering on the issue of whether or not God was Jewish based/thinking on it. It would not have been difficult for someone to say "What kind of silly question is this? Why would you even write on it or be thinking on it?"--but the reality is that respectful dialouge, regardless of what one thinks on the question itself or things stated, is what is expected. And with that said, again, the same is said here. If you personally disagree with the concept of evolution in certain areas, that is not a problem. However, saying "Are you serious" in dismissal doesn't give a real addressment of information nor does it really give anything in way of showing one understands a concept in science.

Frankly, you surprised me. First time ever.

It wouldn't bother me if someone said "what kind of silly question is this?" I was amazed that someone actually thinks God is Jewish and that is why He chose the Jewish people. And that is why we are to keep the torah. i was also accused of bowing down to a false, torahless god.

 

[Incariol]

nor does it mean that intelligence/potential to develop it is only a trait reserved for man. Other animals would still be after their own kind and nothing I said went against that. If you disagree, by all means one is free to show their reasons why

Dude, we've observed intelligence in a number of other animal species such as non-human primates, dogs, horses, elephants, cetaceans, octopi, ravens etc., and even bacteria can develop via evolution...

 

[brinny]

A thread you made here #5 where you said you were wondering on the issue of whether or not God was Jewish based/thinking on it. It would not have been difficult for someone to say "What kind of silly question is this? Why would you even write on it or be thinking on it?"--but the reality is that respectful dialouge, regardless of what one thinks on the question itself or things stated, is what is expected. And with that said, again, the same is said here. If you personally disagree with the concept of evolution in certain areas, that is not a problem. However, saying "Are you serious" in dismissal doesn't give a real addressment of information nor does it really give anything in way of showing one understands a concept in science.

I agree-as said before. All creatures were made from the DUST of the ground, including every beast of the field (Genesis 1). It's no surprise then to see how some things with DNA are similar and traits seem familar---but being made in the Image of the Lord is what makes man unique above all others..and that has nothing to do with having no connection with other species already there, nor does it mean that intelligence/potential to develop it is only a trait reserved for man. animals would still be after their own kind and nothing I said went against that....and many respectable theologians/Christian scientists have noted that for ages--and for good reference on it:

• Evidence for God from Science: Christian ApologeticsA Scientific and Biblical Response to "Up from the Apes. Remarkable New Evidence Is Filling in the Story of How We Became Human"

If you disagree, by all means one is free to show their reasons why

Did Jesus die for animals (that ever were, or ever will be)?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Did Jesus die for animals (that ever were, or ever will be)?

Did the Lord only die for the redeemption of man? Or did He die for the redeemption of all Creation itself? Who was affected by the Fall? Man alone?

Bear in mind, by the way, that how one answers the question is also reflective on what one understands on the text of Genesis--and man's role in stewardship of creation, as well as what has been occcuring for a LONG time with man's rape of the natural world/justifying it in the claim that the Lord does not care about nature. I've shared my perspective in-depth before here and here in #1 , #28 and #73 --and thus, it's not really something I care to repeat again.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Frankly, you surprised me. First time ever.
.

First time for everything, I suppose... And probably not the first time for surprises either, depending on what view is shared or not.

It wouldn't bother me if someone said "what kind of silly question is this?" I was amazed that someone actually thinks God is Jewish and that is why He chose the Jewish people. And that is why we are to keep the torah.

Got ya.

i was also accused of bowing down to a false, torahless god

Hate it when that one goes down, especially if one making the argument assumes they keep the Torah fully as in the OT and yet cannot show how they're anywhere consistent with it. Sorry that had to occur with ya...

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Did Jesus die for animals (that ever were, or ever will be)?

Did the Lord only die for the redeemption of man? Or did He die for the redeemption of all Creation itself? Who was affected by the Fall? Man alone?

Please answer the specific question i asked. Thank you.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Please answer the specific question i asked. Thank you.

Did--and again, your question needs to address the larger one before it that is within the Bible: DOes scripture say man was EVER the only one the Lord came to redeem? For in answering that, your question is addressed rather easily....and it seems you didn't really consider it before asking the one you did. Romans 8 being one of the main places for reference..

 

[brinny]

First time for everything, I suppose... And probably not the first time for surprises either, depending on what view is shared or not.
Got ya.

Hate it when that one goes down, especially if one making the argument assumes they keep the Torah fully as in the OT and yet cannot show how they're anywhere consistent with it. Sorry that had to occur with ya...

Re 2nd paragrah: It happens often?

 

[3rdHeaven]

Adam and Eve were not Jewish.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Re 2nd paragrah: It happens often?

Specifically, it happens often that many claiming to love Torah/be "Torah Observant" condemn others not as zealous as they are as being "torahless"...and they do damage in the process. SAw it alot growing up, especially within places like Hebrew Roots movements....and it's not pretty. Hope that clarifies

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Please answer the specific question i asked. Thank you.

Did--and again, your question needs to address the larger one before it that is within the Bible: DOes scripture say man was EVER the only one the Lord came to redeem? For in answering that, your question is addressed rather easily....and it seems you didn't really consider it before asking the one you did. Romans 8 being one of the main places for reference..

i didn't ask because i did not know, i asked for your opinion on it.

The bottom line is that all of creation fell and was corrupted with man's sin. Jesus was sent to die for man. Man was always man, and never an animal or beast of any sort. He was created in God's image from the gitgo. That has not changed, nor did the image of God come to man in stages, as he "developed" into a more man-like image. Man has always been who he was created to be, in the image of God.

 

[brinny]

Specifically, it happens often that many claiming to love Torah/be "Torah Observant" condemn others not as zealous as they are as being "torahless"...and they do damage in the process. SAw it alot growing up, especially within places like Hebrew Roots movements....and it's not pretty. Hope that clarifies

I was not aware of that. It is hurtful and it's shocking.

 

[Incariol]

i didn't ask because i did not know, i asked for your opinion on it.

The bottom line is that all of creation fell and was corrupted with man's sin. Jesus was sent to die for man. Man was always man, and never an animal or beast of any sort. He was created in God's image from the gitgo. That has not changed, nor did the image of God come to man in stages, as he "developed" into a more man-like image. Man has always been who he was created to be, in the image of God.

*absently* Humans are animals. We are part of Kingdom Animalia. Not beasts, certainly but definitely animals.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Specifically, it happens often that many claiming to love Torah/be "Torah Observant" condemn others not as zealous as they are as being "torahless"...and they do damage in the process. SAw it alot growing up, especially within places like Hebrew Roots movements....and it's not pretty. Hope that clarifies

Aren't a lot of the Hebrew roots folk just Gentiles pretending to be Jews?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
i didn't ask because i did not know, i asked for your opinion on it.

The bottom line is that all of creation fell and was corrupted with man's sin. Jesus was sent to die for man. Man was always man, and never an animal or beast of any sort. He was created in God's image from the gitgo. That has not changed, nor did the image of God come to man in stages, as he "developed" into a more man-like image. Man has always been who he was created to be, in the image of God.

*absently* Humans are animals. We are part of Kingdom Animalia. Not beasts, certainly but definitely animals.

Man is created in God's image. God is an animal?

 

[Incariol]

Man is created in God's image. God is an animal?

Of course, that is even part of the forum statement of faith.


Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)