Did Jesus create mankind (Adam)?

[Brickjectivity]

It is believed that ‘Jesus’, as the Son of God, created all things: The heavens and the earth; all things on the earth and in the heavens, the angels (Seraphims, Cherubims, Archangels, Messenger angels, etc., and even Adam and Eve as the beginning of mankind.

Its just a figure of speech, and any misunderstandings are not all that important.

But is this true and where, if it is, can evidence be shown of this.

I am suggesting that almighty God; the Father (YHWH), and He alone, created all things by using His Spirit (His eternal active force) which was ‘with Him’ in the beginning, which is shown in Genesis 1…

And, the Title question… God consorted with His greatest and most majestic angel, in the creation of mankind, saying to him: ‘Let us create man in our image’.

That angel, called ‘Lucifer’ at that time, created the body of the first man, named ‘Adam’ because of the red soil in the area, After thus GOD blew the breathe of Adam into the inactive body and Adam became a living Soul.

Nowhere in that narrative is there any reference to ‘Son’ or ‘Jesus’.

What’s your take on the matter?

Its not a conspiracy. Its a figure of speech that gets taken to extremes. A more obvious example of a figure of speech that can be taken to extremes is Matthew 18:8 "8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire."

Jesus makes figures of speech and does not consider himself to blame when they are misunderstood. Instead of saying "Sorry" he chides the disciples for being dull. Its their own fault, and the moral seems to be that if we misunderstand it is our own fault. We cannot blame or rely upon others for good or bad sense. It is up to the student to learn, not to the teacher to teach. The teacher is not the real teacher. The student might ask the teacher a question, but it is the real teacher (God or God's principles) that they should be inquiring from.

And this is the same. Figures of speech about things are our responsibility to discern.

 

[Soapy]

"God" is ambiguous.

And Elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:26

Ah… no! ‘Them’ means ‘MAN[KIND]’.

‘Man’ is just shortening in ENGLISH for a being who is of type called ‘MANKIND’ by context. So, ‘Let us create mankind in our image…!’ And, ‘the being that was of mankind became a living soul’.
And, ‘Who is MAN[KIND] that thou regardeth him?’

It’s a single ‘The man sinned’ or plural ‘Man will die’ depending on context - like ‘Sheep’, and ‘Fish’.

 

[Soapy]

Its just a figure of speech, and any misunderstandings are not all that important.

Its not a conspiracy. Its a figure of speech that gets taken to extremes. A more obvious example of a figure of speech that can be taken to extremes is Matthew 18:8 "8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire."

Jesus makes figures of speech and does not consider himself to blame when they are misunderstood. Instead of saying "Sorry" he chides the disciples for being dull. Its their own fault, and the moral seems to be that if we misunderstand it is our own fault. We cannot blame or rely upon others for good or bad sense. It is up to the student to learn, not to the teacher to teach. The teacher is not the real teacher. The student might ask the teacher a question, but it is the real teacher (God or God's principles) that they should be inquiring from.

And this is the same. Figures of speech about things are our responsibility to discern.

Which / Whose post are you responding to?

 

[Ebionite]

The scriptures clearly says that God created ONE MAN IN HIS IMAGE (because God is ONE!!!)

This one man carried all the attributes of God in that he was image of God. The man, Adam, carried out many commands of God, dutifully, which is why he is called ‘Son of God’.

Ah… no! ‘Them’ means ‘MAN[KIND]’.

So which is it? one man called Adam from Genesis 2 or mankind from Genesis 1?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Which / Whose post are you responding to?

The one I quoted was yours, and I was responding to your OP. Essentially I am saying that the belief you refer to is simply a misunderstanding about figures of speech.

 

[Audie]

Good answer!

Can you elaborate on your answer?

Why should I? You won't like what I'd say and
the chance you'd take note of a jot ( or tittle)
of it is zero.

 

[Soapy]

So which is it? one man called Adam from Genesis 2 or mankind from Genesis 1?

If it had said: ‘Let us create Fish to swim in the sea…’, would you presume God mean ONE FISH, or did he mean ‘the Species’ called ‘Fish’ and therefore, many! So God created [a] FISH (just go with it!!!) which procreated many more FISH!

This is all basic English language!

 

[Soapy]

The one I quoted was yours, and I was responding to your OP. Essentially I am saying that the belief you refer to is simply a misunderstanding about figures of speech.

Ok.

 

[Soapy]

Why should I? You won't like what I'd say and
the chance you'd take note of a jot ( or tittle)
of it is zero.

You are absolutely right…. Well done!

 

[Audie]

You are absolutely right…. Well done!

We.l done ? Obvious to any half wit.

So why are you in a debate forum?

 

[Soapy]

We.l done ? Obvious to any half wit.

So why are you in a debate forum?

Are you allowed to call another member what you just said?

 

[Audie]

Are you allowed to call another member what you just said?

Report it if you actually managed to think
I called you that.

 

[Ebionite]

If it had said: ‘Let us create Fish to swim in the sea…’, would you presume God mean ONE FISH, or did he mean ‘the Species’ called ‘Fish’ and therefore, many! So God created [a] FISH (just go with it!!!) which procreated many more FISH!

This is all basic English language!

The point is that you're using ambiguous language. Unless that's resolved communication is a waste of time.

 

[Soapy]

Report it if you actually managed to think
I called you that.

Did I say anything about reporting you?

 

[Soapy]

The point is that you're using ambiguous language. Unless that's resolved communication is a waste of time.

It’s you who is being ambiguous… or whatever!!!

‘Man’ is a dual use term…. Like ‘Sheep’ and ‘Fish’.

‘Man’ is a species of animal (Plural attachment) as well as a male person (Singular / individual)

What’s your real point? What the purpose in you pursuing a normal mode of speech in words and sentence in writing?

 

[Ebionite]

It’s you who is being ambiguous… or whatever!!!

‘Man’ is a dual use term…. Like ‘Sheep’ and ‘Fish’.

‘Man’ is a species of animal (Plural attachment) as well as a male person (Singular / individual)

What’s your real point? What the purpose in you pursuing a normal mode of speech in words and sentence in writing?

No, I'm not being ambiguous.

 

[Soapy]

No, I'm not being ambiguous.

Let’s have a look at an example of what you said…. (This is a whole heap of nonsense, by the way… sad to say but I’m only doing it to show you up!)

• And Elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over … the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing [insect, etc.] that creepeth upon the earth

All the bolded text above represents a SPECIES - a plural number of living entities.

The term ‘man’ in that verse is shortened from ‘Mankind’. It us no different to Jesus saying:

• ‘With man [many things seem impossible] but with God [everything is possible]’ (paraphrased)

Is Jesus speaking of one man… or mankind?
Could Jesus have said:

• ‘Woe is man… with them …. But with God …. ‘

Do you get it yet?

Basic English - 101….!

 

[Ebionite]

Let’s have a look at an example of what you said…. (This is a whole heap of nonsense, by the way… sad to say but I’m only doing it to show you up!)

You're ignoring the original point which was that the language that you used was ambiguous.

 

[Soapy]

You're ignoring the original point which was that the language that you used was ambiguous.

Show me again what you claim… am I missing the nonsense point of your nonsense claim?

Or just stop your nonsense replies.

 

[Ebionite]

Show me again what you claim… am I missing the nonsense point of your nonsense claim?

Or just stop your nonsense replies.

It's not my problem that you don't understand why ambiguity is an issue.