- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I wanted to test the truth of the Jewish teaching about Adam Kadmon (primordial man). He is not to be confused with Adam HaRishon(first man) though they are interrelated concepts according to my source.
One source for this tenet is Zohar. It is a foundation work in Kabbalah literature.
Zohar
Closely related to the Philonic doctrine of the heavenly Adam is the Adam Ḳadmon (called also Adam ‘Ilaya, the “high man,” the “heavenly man”) of the Zohar, whose conception of the original man can be deduced from the following passages: “The form of man is the image of everything that is above [in heaven] and below [upon earth]; therefore did the Holy Ancient [God] select it for His own form.”[1]
As with Philo the Logos is the original image of man, or the original man, so in the Zohar the heavenly man is the embodiment of all divine manifestations: the ten Sefirot, the original image of man. The heavenly Adam, stepping forth out of the highest original darkness, created the earthly Adam.[2] In other words, the activity of the original essence manifested itself in the creation of man, who at the same time is the image of the heavenly man and of the universe,[3] just as with Plato and Philo the idea of man, as microcosm, embraces the idea of the universe or macrocosm.
It seems to echo some ideas that are found in the New Testament, though it is a different take on them. Instead of the logos being the original image of the first Adam it is the original image of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was conceived when the heavenly Jesus Christ stepped out of the heavenly realms to create him in his mother.
The Zohar, unlike Philo’s writings , is a post First Century work and therefore is not direct evidence thought in the time of Jesus and before. It does show us that people of different cultures and times do not necessary think as we do.
Note: Quoted from wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kadmon
Note: Some info for the text from wikipedia.org/wiki/ZoharGood on you Kerwin; Spend your precious time feeding on strange flesh.
Which is not the spirit of Christ.
Jesus own words is obviously not to your taste.
You needed some more flavourings to get some satisfaction.
wakeup.
wakeup.
Wakeup,
Those that do not study history are said to be doomed to repeat it. In this case it is about studying the context of the culture and time that Scripture was written in and the only reason I see anyone is reluctant to do so as they are afraid of the truth it may reveal. Those that are afraid of the truth are not of God.
Wakeup,
For example your chosen doctrine does not actually have anything to do with any historic teaching but seems to come from you. It is in all appearances a new age teaching, a teaching of the very time you advocate as the time of the “one world order” conspiracy. It is you therefore that indulge in strange flesh because you do not seek the truth in all places it can be found.
Kerwin.
Judge all things by the scriptures.
I indeed teach not the doctrine taught by the majority,which is contradictory to scriptures.
It taste like some kind of new strong wine to most; but it is not new;it is the true wine without mixture.
Judge what I teach by the scriptures,not by some other doctrine. It is in contradiction to the existing doctrine taught by men.
Anyone can read books, but dont learn any spiritual doctrines from them.
That is God’s job to teach,and He has provided us with His Word.
wakeup.
Wakeup,
Judge all things by the scriptures.
In a way you are correct but it is wiser to test all things by God’s Spirit as your understanding of Scripture can be wrong.
What I am doing here is testing an early Jewish teaching because the only real difference between those who then called themselves Jews and the Christians spoken of in Scripture is that the later believed the Christ had come while the former do not. Before Jesus came the Christians were Jews and converts to Judaism and their were many false brothers in their community.
I have seen no sign of a teaching that is even like yours when looking in history. It does look like a new age teaching but not the most extreme of those as you do try to justify it by Scripture.
I agree Kerwin.
If my teaching is the same as the others, it would be full of holes.
If you understood all the scriptures clearly; you would also see all the holes.
All the holes are covered up with with tape.
I can see it clearly; but you seem not to be able to see.
I have expposed all the holes on a list a few years ago.
wakeup.
Kerwin.
My doctrine is not mine;and it is not new.
It only seems new because you have not heard it before,but it is the original doctrine without mixture.
You can test it with scriptures. Judge all spiritual things by the scriptures.
wakeup.
I think the Luria is credited to the theology of a 16th century rabbi of Kabbalah and is therefore not as reliable source of the first century teachings as one written in that century.
Wikipedia states about the Luria:
The conception of Adam Ḳadmon becomes an important factor in the later Kabbalah of Isaac Luria. Adam Ḳadmon is with him no longer the concentrated manifestation of the Sefirot, but a mediator between the En-Sof (“infinite”) and the Sefirot. The En-Sof, according to Luria, is so utterly incomprehensible that the older Kabbalistic doctrine of the manifestation of the En-Sof in the Sefirot must be abandoned. Hence he teaches that only the Adam Ḳadmon, who arose in the way of self-limitation by the En-Sof, can be said to manifest himself in the Sefirot. This theory of Luria is treated by Ḥayyim Vital in “‘Eẓ Ḥayyim; Derush ‘Agulim we-Yosher” (Treatise on Circles and the Straight Line).
Sefirot = attributes/emanations
En-Sof = God; Note: there are subtleties to it that are too complicated for me to quite understand nor do I think they are important.If I understand this correct this explanation sounds a lot like what trinitarians claim about Jesus. Those that adhere to Luria are not trinitarians so any interpretation of their writings that find support for the trinity is wrong.
Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kadmon
Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Luria
Note: definitions are from wikipediaWakeup,
I am testing the doctrine as it claims to be derived from Scripture. I am also seeing if a variation of it is context for certain Scriptures. Context is important for correctly understanding any words. The Spirit is necessary for testing and deriving the context.
You can get the essential truth by reading Scripture as the true context is derived from Scripture in the first place and so you can derive the same thing from the same source.
Wakeup,
I meant to say “not found” instead of found but dropped the word “not”. I am sorry for causing that misunderstanding.
To all,
Wakeup,
I have tested your doctrine by Scripture had found it there.
I made an error in this post. I dropped the “not” that belongs is front of “found” in my carelessness. I am sorry for any misunderstandings it caused.
Philo
The first to use the expression “original man,” or “heavenly man,” was Philo, in whose view the γενικός, or οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος, “as being born in the image of God, has no participation in any corruptible or earthlike essence; whereas the earthly man is made of loose material, called a lump of clay.”[4] The heavenly man, as the perfect image of the Logos, is neither man nor woman, but an incorporeal intelligence purely an idea; while the earthly man, who was created by God later, is perceptible to the senses and partakes of earthly qualities.[5] Philo is evidently combining philosophy and Midrash, Plato and the rabbis. Setting out from the duplicate Biblical account of Adam, who was formed in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and of the first man, whose body God formed from the earth (Genesis 2:7), he combines with it the Platonic doctrine of ideas; taking the primordial Adam as the idea, and the created man of flesh and blood as the “image.” That Philo’s philosophic views are grounded on the Midrash, and not vice versa, is evident from his seemingly senseless statement that the “heavenly man,” the οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος (who is merely an idea), is “neither man nor woman.” This doctrine, however, becomes quite intelligible in view of the following ancient Midrash.
Philo is a contemporary of John and wrote of the heavenly Adam. His idea seems to be based on the fact their are two accounts of the creation of Adam in Genesis. He is the image of the Logos. I am not sure if he is a being or just an idea but from what little I read of Philo I think the later is the case. I tend to think his conclusion that Genesis one is speaking of God’s plan of creation and Genesis 2 is speaking of the actual creation has merit as in Genesis 1:11-13 God created the plants on the third Night and Day and at the same time they grew but in Genesis 2:5 we are told no plant grew as God had not yet caused it to rain on the earth and it is only after he created man that he planted a garden in Eden.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
