You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Was Jesus the reincarnation of Adam?
"The first Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45)
"I am the First and the Last." (Revelation 1:17)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End." (Revelation 21:6)
"He was with God in the beginning." (John 1:1-2)
"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:19)
Adam introduced sin, Jesus died for our sins... Was Jesus just Adam making up for his mistake?
No, "there is no evidence for the Big Bang" is the worst argument of 2014. There is obviously evidence for it, otherwise it wouldn't be talked about. The evidence for it could lead to a different conclusion, but there is still evidence for it.
I didn't say anything about proving anything. You made the statement that there is no evidence. That is a stupid argument. The Big Bang would have cosmic radiation, since there is cosmic radiation, that is evidence that the Big Bang happened. I never said evidence is proof.
You keep drawing conclusions. I am saying that there is evidence, there is a huge difference. Yes, trains are evidence that Harry Potter is a true story. The problem is that trains are not the least believable part of Harry Potter. You can say that cosmic radiation doesn't convince you that the Big Bang happened, but you cannot claim that cosmic radiation is not evidence of the Big Bang.
Yes, actually it is. Harry Potter said there were trains. Since there are trains, part of Harry Potter is real. Just because it isn't convincing doesn't mean it isn't evidence.
It is the basic premise that Ken Ham uses. See how annoying it can be? He says that there is evidence that supports Creation. Then, he figures out a way to throw out the evidence that rejects it. In order to prove something you also have to demonstrate that there is no evidence to reject your idea, which there is plenty against Harry Potter. Plus, you have to provide evidence for the entire thing, which Harry is lacking.
So, in your mind the Big Bang hasn't been proven, but that is only because the evidence presented doesn't convince you, not because there is no evidence. And, your opinion that the Big Bang may not be true is valid.
"Lemaître designed and based his big bang theory on the Biblical story of Genesis. Lemaître hoped to make the Bible scientific and in accord with testable observations."
Well he's wrong because according to the Big Bang theory the universe took billions of years to get to the state it is now where as according to the Genesis it took seven days.
Lol do you realize what you just said? He doesn't understand his own theory? I think he was going more based off of the order of the events, because some people interpret that Genesis is not referring to literal days. An example of this would be that the sun was created on the fourth day, which as we know would be impossible.
This isn't fair. We have gone through decades of Christians denying the Big Bang. Now you are claiming they can coexist. It takes time to transition to the idea that Christians support it. Go easy on him. Remember, he isn't arguing against you, he is arguing against the previous notion that Big Bang and Genesis can't coexist.
That's because nobody pays attention to the specifics. Most Christians haven't even read the entire Bible. Do you realize how silly that is? That's like someone joining the ultimate Harry Potter Fan Club without even finishing the books (or watching the films).
The Catholic priest who came up with the theory is kind of an unknown anyways. I guess people don't like that a priest made one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time. I bet a lot of people think it was Albert Einstein who came up with it lol.
The Catholic priest who came up with the theory is kind of an unknown anyways. I guess people don't like that a priest made one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time. I bet a lot of people think it was Albert Einstein who came up with it lol.
That's another common misconception. Hubble was able to provide support for Georges Lemaitre's theory by clarifying that the universe truly was expanding.
like paul said, god is not mocked, whatever a man sows that shall he also reap. the one who brought sin into the world is the one who has to atone for it. notice he entered the world 2000 years ago accompanied by elijah, whom he knew before birth! and when elijah had accomplished his mission, he too atoned for his own actions of slaughtering the prophets of baal when he was beheaded by herod. in fact, elijah had two debts to pay because god is no respecter of persons. he still had an appointment with death at least once. this motif is seen throughout the scripture. esau and jacob are a redo of cain and abel. and finally, eve is the mother of all living. adam had to be born again of a woman. he had to be born of a virgin so that he is first among his brethren, being the firstborn male to open the womb so that he receives the double portion from the father to be king of kings and lord of lords. the trinity is heretical. it is the father and the son, as john says in his epistles. the father IS the holy spirit. god is a spirit. it was the holy spirit that went unto mary. he is the father.
I wonder what would have happened if Adam didn't follow her? Maybe God would have just punished Eve, or got rid of her and made a different woman from another one of Adam's ribs lol.
Jesus cannot be Eve, he totes existed before her so that shows us that he isn't a reincarnation of anybody. Just a physical manifestation of the word of God.
Sure he can. He went into flesh as Jesus, why couldn't he have gone into flesh as Adam? Did you read the verses I put in the description? Jesus was referred to as "the last Adam".
New Testament wasn't originally written in Hebrew, it was written in Greek. When ever you see "Adam" in English translations, you know they are referring to the name. When you see the word "man", you know they are referring to man. They wouldn't have translated an entire verse and then left the Hebrew word for "man".
Not really. Even Jesus' name was changed. His Hebrew name was Yeshua, which is the equivalent of Joshua. So if they left Adam, they left it for a reason.
God created everything through speech: "let there be light", "let the earth bring forth grass", etc. Man was created the same way: "Let us make man in our image". She doesn't realize that Adam was the Word, so Jesus saying he was too, seems a lot like him saying that he was Adam.
Yeah, well it's a creation story from over 2000 years ago. It's gonna be a little weird. Does it not support the idea that Jesus is the reincarnation of Adam though?
Jesus is all God and all Man. No reincarnation. Jesus is the second person in the Trinity. Jesus has always been God. Not Eve!!!!!!! There is no such thing as Reincarnation. "Its appointed for man once to die but after that the Judgement(Hebrews 10:27)" Each person only lives once first of all. Second of all; Jesus is God and is the second person in the Trinity. Jesus, Holy Spirit, and The Father are the same in power, existence,etc... Jesus in no way is a Reincarnated person. That is Blasphemy to say that almighty God who sent his son to die- Jesus is Almighty God the second person of the Trinity. That is Blasphemy.
if jesus is adam...then who the fuck is santa claus?...besides the fat guy that sneaks down the chimney once a year and pokes your ho ho ho of a mother?
No, Jesus existed before Adam. Jesus had always existed with God at the same time.
John 1:1-4 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind."
Later the bible says:
John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Jesus existed before Adam, so he can't be a reincarnation of Adam.
That doesn't disprove my argument. Actually, with the right interpretation, it supports it. Plus, if God has always existed, then which beginning is the Bible referring to?
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Both Adam and Jesus have been referred to as the son of God... So God's only son?
That doesn't disprove my argument. Actually, with the right interpretation, it supports it.
It actually cannot. Since Adam and Jesus existed as two separate beings. One was eternal and uncreated and one was the first human, but during Adam's existence Jesus also existed, thus your premise falls apart. He cannot be thus reincarnation of Adam if Jesus already was in existence and remained in existence before, during, and past Adam.
Both Adam and Jesus have been referred to as the son of God... So God's only son?
God is said to have created Adam directly so in a sense he is the son of God. Jesus is the one and only sole son of God as being a direct part of him. Adam was either made from God with supernatural abilities, or God used processes of biogenesis to bring him about.
It actually cannot. Since Adam and Jesus existed as two separate beings.
In the Bible, Jesus says that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah. The Bible isn't exempt from the idea.
One was eternal and uncreated and one was the first human
They were both humans with divine connection. Jesus' soul was eternal.
but during Adam's existence Jesus also existed, thus your premise falls apart.
Not if you read it all in context. It says Jesus was there in the beginning. Eternity has no beginning.
He cannot be thus reincarnation of Adam if Jesus already was in existence and remained in existence before, during, and past Adam.
You do understand that the soul exists separately from the body, right? At least in terms of the Bible.
God is said to have created Adam directly so in a sense he is the son of God.
Luke 3:38 "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."
In other words, God was the father of Adam, Adam the father of Seth, Seth the father of Enosh.
Why do you think this genealogy was pointed out in Luke of all places?
Also what "beginning" are you like alluding to?
Like I said, eternity has no beginning. So is the Bible referring to the beginning of the universe, the beginning of the earth, or the beginning of mankind?
In the Bible, Jesus says that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah. The Bible isn't exempt from the idea.
Thy existed on two different time scale. A being that has always existed cannot be the reincarnation of its own creation since that requires it to be present at two times. One being during Adam's life, and Jesus existed then. The bible also makes it clear who Jesus is ( word of God).
They were both humans with divine connection. Jesus' soul was eternal.
That's great, but you have to disprove that he isn't the reincarnation of the word of God, which has much more support. Those are the verses I quoted.
Not if you read it all in context. It says Jesus was there in the beginning. Eternity has no beginning.
You do know that this is in reference to humanistic beginning? Just like when God says he is Alpha and Omega, the first and the last? He cannot really be first or last if he is eternally existing. Its for humanistic understanding.
You do understand that the soul exists separately from the body, right? At least in terms of the Bible. God is said to have
Yes, but how can he be a reincarnation of Adam when he is really the reincarnation of the word of God?
Luke 3:38 "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." In other words, God was the father of Adam, Adam the father of Seth, Seth the father of Enosh. Why do you think this genealogy was pointed out in Luke of all places?
This is the only way to out it since Adam had no parents. Jesus is a conpletely separete entity. He is the physical word of God.
Like I said, eternity has no beginning. So is the Bible referring to the beginning of the universe, the beginning of the earth, or the beginning of mankind?
I totes think it means mankind* but I may be wrong.
Thy existed on two different time scale. A being that has always existed cannot be the reincarnation of its own creation since that requires it to be present at two times.
Remember how I told you that almost every religion teaches that everything is one? Well, Christianity is one of them. Jesus always existed, because Jesus is God, and so is Adam.
Adam introduced sin, Jesus died for our sins. When Jesus says I am the beginning and the end, he's talking about sin. He introduced it and he ended it.
The bible also makes it clear who Jesus is ( word of God).
Do you know what the "Word" is? In Genesis, God created everything by speaking, ex. "let there be light". He created man the same way, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness". That was "The Word". Adam was the Word.
You do know that this is in reference to humanistic beginning?
And who was the first human? Adam.
Just like when God says he is Alpha and Omega, the first and the last?
The first and last Adam, as is clearly stated in the verse I provided.
He cannot really be first or last if he is eternally existing. Its for humanistic understanding.
They understood God is eternal, they even said it... So they would know that he had no beginning. So why did they mention one? The beginning of sin and the end of sin, like I said.
This is the only way to out it since Adam had no parents. Jesus is a conpletely separete entity. He is the physical word of God.
Adam was the physical word of God as well.
I totes think it means mankind but I may be wrong.
Remember how I told you that almost every religion teaches that everything is one? Well, Christianity is one of them. Jesus always existed, because Jesus is God, and so is Adam.
Adam is not God or Jesus. He can't be what already was and still is.
Adam introduced sin, Jesus died for our sins. When Jesus says I am the beginning and the end, he's talking about sin. He introduced it and he ended it.
Eve was the sin bringer. Jesus existed during Adam's time and continued to exist until God decided that his word needed to be applied in a humanistic way. Jesus is only the word of God, not Adam.
Do you know what the "Word" is? In Genesis, God created everything by speaking, ex. "let there be light". He created man the same way, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness". That was "The Word". Adam was the Word.
The "word" is just God. That's it and the verse says that. The "word" was not him speaking. That is just a power of his, he cannot lie so anything he says becomes true. The word is God and his nature. Adam doesn't equal the nature of God. Jesus was without sin, therefore Adam cannot even be equated to Jesus, or God, since he has sinned, and God cannot sin, which means Jesus cannot sin.
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
As I have said, God cannot sin. Adam sinned. Adam cannot be God, or Jesus.
And who was the first human? Adam.
I totes agree.
The first and last Adam, as is clearly stated in the verse I provided.
I have already explain why Adam isn't Jesus or God.
They understood God is eternal, they even said it... So they would know that he had no beginning. So why did they mention one? The beginning of sin and the end of sin, like I said.
I'm aware that they understood, but a linear understanding of the point where humanity began is "the beginning" just as the bible says. The beginning of sin was the fall of man (or Lucifer to some) and the post 1,000 year reign of peace.
Adam was the physical word of God as well.
Again, I totes have shown you why you are incorrect. Adam sinned, God cannot sin, therefore Adam cannot be the word of God.
Adam is not God or Jesus. He can't be what already was and still is.
You're missing the point.
Eve was the sin bringer.
Ah, but what do you think would of happened if Adam didn't follow her?
Jesus existed during Adam's time and continued to exist until God decided that his word needed to be applied in a humanistic way.
His Word is what created Adam in the first place.
The "word" is just God. That's it and the verse says that. The "word" was not him speaking.
It is called God's Word for a reason. This shouldn't be that hard to grasp.
Adam doesn't equal the nature of God. Jesus was without sin, therefore Adam cannot even be equated to Jesus, or God, since he has sinned, and God cannot sin, which means Jesus cannot sin.
There are gospels that were not included in the Bible where Jesus killed people.
You seem to be having difficulty grasping the concept of reincarnation. Read these verses carefully:
Romans 5:18-19 "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for fall men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous."
Did you catch that? "The one man's". It is talking about the same man. I'd also like to point out that it says that the man made us all sinners, not Eve.
As I have said, God cannot sin. Adam sinned. Adam cannot be God, or Jesus.
Do you honestly think that if Adam were to reincarnate to make up for his mistakes, he'd sin again? He wouldn't have gone to heaven as Adam, but as a soul or spirit. Souls and spirits are without sin, not men.
I have already explain why Adam isn't Jesus or God.
No offense, but you aren't doing a very good job. You aren't understanding. You've even contradicted yourself a few times. Drop your beliefs for a second and focus on what I am telling you. Just because modern interpretation disagrees with this, doesn't mean it isn't what the Bible is trying to say. The notion of reincarnation is older than Christianity. Much older. It isn't far-fetched to believe that Christianity would teach reincarnation, and as a matter of fact, Christian Gnosticism, which is supposed to be the original Christianity, teaches what are apparently the "secret teachings" of Jesus. Guess what the Gnostics teach? Reincarnation. They actually teach that it is a punishment, in a sense. If you fail spiritually, then you have to come back. Adam may have failed, don't you think?
The beginning of sin was the fall of man (or Lucifer to some) and the post 1,000 year reign of peace.
Lucifer is mentioned once in the entire Bible, and it is not in Old Testament.
Again, I totes have shown you why you are incorrect
No you haven't! You've totes shown me that you don't know what you are talking about.
In the Gnostic gospels, Jesus taught that people have to keep reincarnating until they become one with God, so to speak. Once they achieve that, their soul stays in heaven for eternity. Jesus achieved that. He taught that anyone could become a Christ. It is a spiritual achievement, not a last name.
Your right Im totes all over the place. Alright lets go through this slowly.
Nah you got me I cant figure it out. And hey!! You totes cant steal my totes. Forgive me for my like ingnorant nature. I have a tendency to act like I know everything. Tryna be like my dad. Your theory is certainly plausible. Sorry again.
Also isnt lucifer just like the name for light bringer or something? Like new morning or dawn star?
No problem. The Bible says that Lucifer was the son of the Morning Star. The Morning Star is the planet Venus. Jesus said that he was related to it too.
He cannot be thus reincarnation of Adam if Jesus already was in existence and remained in existence before, during, and past Adam.
What? Jesus is the physical manifestation of the Word of God. Doesn't that mean that Jesus doesn't exist except for the time that He was on Earth? Before that He is the Word of God, not really Jesus. Right?
Doesn't that mean that Jesus doesn't exist except for the time that He was on Earth?
No. The word of God is God, therefore Jesus always existed.
Before that He is the Word of God, not really Jesus. Right?
Jesus is the word of God, which is God. God is eternal, thus the word is eternal, which also means Jesus is eternal. Jesus always existed. He totes said it once I think.
According to you: Jesus is Word of God, God, and son of God. It doesn't matter if those things don't make sense together.
Now, Adam is also considered the son of God. So, Adam = son of God = Jesus. Therefore Adam is Jesus and Jesus is Adam.
You say Jesus can't be Adam because Jesus existed before Adam, but Jesus also existed before Jesus, therefore Jesus can't be Jesus. And you claim that Jesus can't be Adam because Jesus existed at the same time as Adam, but that only makes sense if God wasn't running around heaven when Jesus was on Earth.
Now, Adam is also considered the son of God. So, Adam = son of God = Jesus. Therefore Adam is Jesus and Jesus is Adam.
No, for that notion disregards all previous notions. The notion that God cannot sin breaks that possibility. God and Jesus cannot sin and are sinless, but Adam had sinned, therefore Adam is not God or Jesus. Jesus also always existed. He existed during Adam's time too.
You say Jesus can't be Adam because Jesus existed before Adam, but Jesus also existed before Jesus, therefore Jesus can't be Jesus.
What? This follows no logic. Jesus existed before Jesus? No. It's himself, he is the singular and not the plural. There is only one Jesus. Jesus just always existed. One cannot outlive themselves or exist before themselves.
And you claim that Jesus can't be Adam because Jesus existed at the same time as Adam, but that only makes sense if God wasn't running around heaven when Jesus was on Earth.
It's perfectly valid and correct. It's the tri-rule. God the Father and Creator was in heaven while he sent Jesus (Himself) to go become the living word.
No, for that notion disregards all previous notions. The notion that God cannot sin breaks that possibility. God and Jesus cannot sin and are sinless, but Adam had sinned, therefore Adam is not God or Jesus. Jesus also always existed. He existed during Adam's time too.
Then, Jesus is not the son of God, or Adam is not the son of God, choose.
What? This follows no logic. Jesus existed before Jesus? No. It's himself, he is the singular and not the plural. There is only one Jesus. Jesus just always existed. One cannot outlive themselves or exist before themselves.
You said that since Jesus existed before the physically manifestation of Adam, Adam can't be Jesus. But, if Jesus exists before the physical manifestation of the person on Earth who claimed to be Jesus, than the guy who claimed to be Jesus can't be Jesus. Make sense now?
It's perfectly valid and correct. It's the tri-rule. God the Father and Creator was in heaven while he sent Jesus (Himself) to go become the living word.
So, the claim that Adam can't be Jesus is unfounded. Adam can be Jesus in the Garden of Eden while Jesus stays in heaven.
Then, Jesus is not the son of God, or Adam is not the son of God, choose.
Where did you derive this from? Jesus and Adam are both direct creations of God. Both are the son of God, but one is sinless and God is sinless, Adam sinned therefore Adam cannot be Jesus.
You said that since Jesus existed before the physically manifestation of Adam, Adam can't be Jesus. But, if Jesus exists before the physical manifestation of the person on Earth who claimed to be Jesus, than the guy who claimed to be Jesus can't be Jesus. Make sense now?
They are the same people. He became flesh. I have already like told you that!! The bible even says that!!
So, the claim that Adam can't be Jesus is unfounded. Adam can be Jesus in the Garden of Eden while Jesus stays in heaven.
Where did you derive this from? Jesus and Adam are both direct creations of God. Both are the son of God, but one is sinless and God is sinless, Adam sinned therefore Adam cannot be Jesus.
You said as long as they share the same title the are the same thing.
They are the same people. He became flesh. I have already like told you that!! The bible even says that!!
You defeated the Bible, awesome. Try to listen for a second. You made a statement that goes against what the Bible said, maybe you should rethink it.
Again, Adam sinned, therefore he cannot be Jesus.
This is your only real argument. You didn't address the problem I was talking about. Jesus could have sinned as Adam, died, went into witness protection, changed his name, then came back to correct his mistake. Jesus is eternally linked to sins now. Maybe it started in the Garden.
Jesus and Adam are both direct creations of God. Both are the son of God, but one is sinless and God is sinless, Adam sinned therefore Adam cannot be Jesus.
Why do you think that it was necessary for Jesus to die for our sins? Maybe because he was responsible for them in the first place.
Again, Adam sinned, therefore he cannot be Jesus.
It is the soul that is without sin. If you were in human form and viewing the world as your soul, you would be sinless. Adam was a human with a soul, Jesus was a soul as a human. You don't believe that Adam could have come back into the world as his soul?
It doesn't. Nothing I say is proof. It's just a theory. Would you like me to go check Jesus' tomb for a half eaten apple instead?
Can you totes quote some scripture to back this claim?
Luke 17:21 "nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
That could probably be interpreted differently, but think of it like this, have you ever heard of any sin in Heaven? No. What goes to Heaven? Our souls.
What did God say after he discovered that Adam ate the forbidden fruit? "Behold, for man has become like Us"
Are you going to continie the verse? Guess not. Well I'll finish it.
Genesis 3:22 - And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
So clearly this verse doesn't help the notion that God has sinned. That is a false notion.
He existed in spirit before he was in the flesh as Jesus.
Jesus was always himself. He just changed forms. He didn't divide or anything. He is always himself.
Are you going to continie the verse? Guess not. Well I'll finish it.
Whoa, slow down there Totes Magotes! You're getting a little cocky lol.
To commit sin is to go against God, so technically God can't sin, but since God is everything... He's technically committing sin as humans, and he is also all-knowing, so he knows what it is like to commit sin. The completion of that verse implies that God is capable of committing the same acts which he deems sinful.
Jesus was always himself. He just changed forms. He didn't divide or anything. He is always himself.
Oh, I'm sorry... I did not know I was dealing with a Biblical scholar here.
You're interpreting outside of the Bible. Your evidence is not within the text. Yesterday you said my theory was plausible, now you are back to disputing it. Come on!
Genesis begins with creation .. Revelation ends with the New Creation
In Genesis we have the first Sabbath .. Revelation closes with the holy rest in the new creation
Genesis gives us the first Adam .. head of the old humanity .. Revelation leaves us with the second Adam .. head of the new humanity
Genesis gives us Eve .. the wife of the first Adam .. sinning .. condemned and sorrowing .. Revelation leaves us with the second Eve .. the Bride of Christ .. exalted .. holy and glorious
In Genesis we have exclusion from the tree of life .. Revelation leaves us with access to it and authority over it
In Genesis we have an earth cursed .. In Revelation we have the earth fully delivered from the curse
Genesis gives us Satan tempting and bruising .. In Revelation we leave him bruised and in the lake of fire forever
They sound a lot like the Yin and the Yang of each other... And as we know, you can't have the Yin without the Yang. And if you want to go by that same philosophy, the Yin is the Yang.
Mega Man vs. Mega Man X...it is that simple. X has a similar nature and abilities, but Mega Man can slide whereas X can jump walls. X can charge his cannon. This proves they are different from each other.
That Jesus is not a copycat of Adam. Adam had no shame when he was perfect; did Jesus? Adam had no ideological stimuli to espouse such philosophies as Jesus did; did Adam just become created at the wrong time in history?
Jesus was referred to as the "last Adam" in the Bible. Could it be that Adam, being the one who introduced sin to mankind, came back to die for our sins? Maybe he was making up for his mistakes. You really think that if Adam were to come back, he would be an exact copy of who he was before? That's not how reincarnation works, at least according to the world's religions it isn't.
