Dating the creation of Adam

[Blackwater Babe]

The Adamic race is around 10,000 years old, as the geneologies in Genesis state. The other races are hundreds of thousands or millions of years old, see my polygenist thread.

So... Hebrews were Created ex Nihilo by God, all other races evolved? Is that your position?

 

[ghendricks63]

Genesis 6: 4 mentions ''sons (plural) of God'' (Sethites)
Luke 3: 38 describes Adam as the son of God.
etc.

Jesus was not the only son of God, everyone who descends from Adam is a ''son of God''. Jesus in the physical sense was no different to any other descendant of Adam, and was just an ordinary mortal man.

Romans 8: 3 describes Jesus as a man ''of sinful flesh'', while the Book of Matthew Jesus calls ordinary men his ''brethren'', i.e he was of the same stock. The only difference between Jesus and all others, is that he never himself sinned.

I tink we're done now...LOL

Peace.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Jesus was not the only son of God, everyone who descends from Adam is a ''son of God''. Jesus in the physical sense was no different to any other descendant of Adam, and was just an ordinary mortal man.

If this is the case then what's so what's so special about Jesus? Is it alright for us to pray to Boudicca, or Darwin, or Winston Churchill or even Stalin? They're all Caucasians, the children of God aren't they?

Are you the son of God Research2?

 

[Research2]

So... Hebrews were Created ex Nihilo by God, all other races evolved? Is that your position?

No i don't believe in evolution, but i believe many of the non-adamics descend from Hominid or ape-type beings. You only have to look for example at an australian aborigines prognathic skull to see this.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

No i don't believe in evolution, but i believe many of the non-adamics descend from Hominid or ape-type beings. You only have to look for example at an australian aborigines prognathic skull to see this.

Thats it, I'm out.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

No i don't believe in evolution, but i believe many of the non-adamics descend from Hominid or ape-type beings. You only have to look for example at an australian aborigines prognathic skull to see this.

I've heard of this line of anthropology myself - from what I remember this was judged by the protrusion of the jaw, which in some races gives a muzzle-like appearance, which chimps and other primates have. Presumably then the flatter the face, the more human they are.

True, Caucasians have flatter faces than Negros and Abroiginals but the people with the flattest faces of all are the Inuits of northern Canada. Besides, humans of all races have the rounded foreheads which contain the frontal lobes, something primates don't have.

Could we bring this to the polygenism thread?

 

[Research2]

If this is the case then what's so what's so special about Jesus?

Jesus was sinless, hence he is called in the New Testament the last or second Adam. Since he was sinless, he was resurrected and entered Heaven and through him is God's plan of salvation for the Adamic race.

When Jesus returns he will reign as king on the throne of David over the two (re-united) houses of Judah and Israel, and there will be the millenial kingdom.

Are you the son of God Research2?

Yes, as are all adamites. Did you know the Bible says we are all saints as well? See Deuternomy 33: 2; Romans 1: 7 etc.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Are you the son of God Research2?

Yes, as are all adamites. Did you know the Bible says we are all saints as well? See Deuternomy 33: 2; Romans 1: 7 etc.

Oh wow ...
Careful there, this message is going to come back to haunt you.

 

[Research2]

I am much more troubled by your claim that Joseph was the "physical" father of Jesus.

Read the fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews (often considered to be the real Book of Matthew) which denies the whole virgin birth nonsense. The virgin Birth was only added to scripture far later by a redactor.

Furthermore the New Testament refers to Jesus as having many siblings (brothers and sisters) and the earliest Christians denied the virgin birth, it only became apart of the mainstream Christian tenets after about the mid 2nd century AD.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Read the fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews (often considered to be the real Book of Matthew) which denies the whole virgin birth nonsense. The virgin Birth was only added to scripture far later by a redactor.

The Gospel of the Hebrews no longer exists so it's hard to verify it's claims. The date it was written is also hard to verify - some sources say as early as 70 A.D., other the mid-2nd century. It's possible (emphasis on 'possible') that the Jews were denying Christ as the Messiah; indeed many early people denied him as the son of God.

The're a rather long but interesting article about it here.

 

[ghendricks63]

Read the fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews (often considered to be the real Book of Matthew) which denies the whole virgin birth nonsense. The virgin Birth was only added to scripture far later by a redactor.

Furthermore the New Testament refers to Jesus as having many siblings (brothers and sisters) and the earliest Christians denied the virgin birth, it only became apart of the mainstream Christian tenets after about the mid 2nd century AD.

Of course he had siblings...duh. Not really seeing the relevance there.

 

[Research2]

Of course he had siblings...duh. Not really seeing the relevance there.

According to the Bible, you cannot have sex or have children outside of marriage (and marriage is to be between one man and one woman only). Adultery and sexual immorality is a sin as listed throughout both the Old and New Testament.

Now Christians who believe in the virgin birth theory, maintain that Mary was impregnated by God Himself or the 'Holy Spirit' (which they believe is apart of the 'Godhead'), while at the same time claim Mary was married to Joseph, and that they had (later) other children together.

- So here is a clear contradiction and breaking of the Biblical laws. This was one of the reasons why the early Christians (most notably the Ebionites) rejected the virgin birth theory. On top of that the whole idea of God impregnating a mortal female Human is immoral, and runs contrary to the nature of God as revealed in the Bible.

 

[ghendricks63]

According to the Bible, you cannot have sex or have children outside of marriage (and marriage is to be between one man and one woman only). Adultery and sexual immorality is a sin as listed throughout both the Old and New Testament.

Now Christians who believe in the virgin birth theory, maintain that Mary was impregnated by God Himself or the 'Holy Spirit' (which they believe is apart of the 'Godhead'), while at the same time claim Mary was married to Joseph, and that they had (later) other children together.

- So here is a clear contradiction and breaking of the Biblical laws. This was one of the reasons why the early Christians (most notably the Ebionites) rejected the virgin birth theory. On top of that the whole idea of God impregnating a mortal female Human is immoral, and runs contrary to the nature of God as revealed in the Bible.

LOL - Now I remember why I said I was through. Disbelief is worth discussing...silliness is a waste of time.

 

[Research2]

LOL - Now I remember why I said I was through. Disbelief is worth discussing...silliness is a waste of time.

Just remember the first Christians denied the virgin birth theory, as well as the trinity - as both these concepts are not Biblical. This thread was not about this topic, but of Adam and the genealogies in Genesis.

What amazes me is that there are liberal Christians/Catholics/evolutionists in this thread who reject the idea of a 'literal' Adam because it to them is 'fairytale' or 'myth' yet oddly without any skepticism believe in the virgin birth theory, which science has revealed is completely crackpot.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

According to the Bible, you cannot have sex or have children outside of marriage (and marriage is to be between one man and one woman only). Adultery and sexual immorality is a sin as listed throughout both the Old and New Testament.

Now Christians who believe in the virgin birth theory, maintain that Mary was impregnated by God Himself or the 'Holy Spirit' (which they believe is apart of the 'Godhead'), while at the same time claim Mary was married to Joseph, and that they had (later) other children together.

Mary was a virgin engaged to Joseph when she conceived Christ. She married him before gave birth to Jesus, and later had other children. No contradiction at all.

At the risk of breaking forum rules, I don't think a person can call themselves a Christian is they believe the virgin birth was 'crackpottery'.

Speaking of which, I never thought I would have to debate against someone who claims he is equal to Jesus Christ because of his race ...

 

[kiwimac]

No i don't believe in evolution, but i believe many of the non-adamics descend from Hominid or ape-type beings. You only have to look for example at an australian aborigines prognathic skull to see this.

This ... Dreck... is both illogical and racist. Keep your racism to yourself there is no room for it here.

 

[Research2]

This ... Dreck... is both illogical and racist. Keep your racism to yourself there is no room for it here.

Looks like you are going on my ignore list as well.

Stop trolling my threads.

 

[Research2]

- What i pointed out is the contradictory nature of the evolutionists in this thread who don't believe in a literal Adam, because they see creationism as a pseudo-science or a fairytale, yet oddly believe in the virgin birth theory. Why not apply the same logic? Has a virgin birth by a spirit been scientifically proven then?

 

[kiwimac]

Looks like you are going on my ignore list as well.

Stop trolling my threads.

I am not trolling anything but do feel free to add me to your ignore list. Of course, you'll stay mired in your ignorance but that's really your problem not mine.

 

[theFijian]

Just remember the first Christians denied the virgin birth theory, as well as the trinity - as both these concepts are not Biblical. This thread was not about this topic, but of Adam and the genealogies in Genesis.

What amazes me is that there are liberal Christians/Catholics/evolutionists in this thread who reject the idea of a 'literal' Adam because it to them is 'fairytale' or 'myth' yet oddly without any skepticism believe in the virgin birth theory, which science has revealed is completely crackpot.

Where is Mark Kennedy?