Jesus vs Adam - Are they the same?

[Big_TJ]

Here are two verses that baffle me. The first is the well-known John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (KJV)


According to dictionary.com, begotten means "to procreate or to generate ( as in an offspring) or to cause.

Now, compare this with another well-known section in Luke (Luke 3:23-38) which deals with the genealogy of Jesus. Pay special attention to verse 38:
" which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (KJV)

Now, if Jesus was the only son that God "begat" or "generates" or "cause", how could Adam be referred to as God's son? Are they one and the same or is there something missing?

 

[Buttercup]

I've always taken the text to mean Adam was God's, "first created son".

Jesus in my mind was intended to be a savior and as such was literally "part" of God. The only logical way to explain who he is was to call him a "son".

 

[Big_TJ]

But the bible did not say that Adam was God's "first created Son", it said " the Son of God." Also, I would equate "created" with "caused" or "generated" thus equating it with "begotten." Therefore, Adam, the "first created son" would be somewhat the same as saying Adam "first begotten Son." Again, since Jesus is the "only begotten Son" we would still have a problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to dictionary.com, begotten means "to procreate or to generate ( as in an offspring) or to cause.

Of course, the real question is what the original word means in the language the original writer wrote in.

I've always thought that the way it's phrased kinda points to God the Father gettin' it on with Mary to produce Jesus (though surreptitiously, because she considered herself to still be a virgin) but not any of His other children, such as Adam and all the people in Genesis who seem to come out of nowhere.

 

[Buttercup]

But the bible did not say that Adam was God's "first created Son", it said " the Son of God." Also, I would equate "created" with "caused" or "generated" thus equating it with "begotten." Therefore, Adam, the "first created son" would be somewhat the same as saying Adam "first begotten Son." Again, since Jesus is the "only begotten Son" we would still have a problem.

I said the usage of the word "son" regarding Adam was probably (a theory) used to bring an intimacy between Adam and God.

Clearly there is a difference between Adam and Jesus. Adam sinned. Jesus did not. So, to answer the title of your thread....no, they are not the same.

 

[Big_TJ]

I said the usage of the word "son" regarding Adam was probably (a theory) used to bring an intimacy between Adam and God.

Fair enough, even though there is nothing in the scripture that suggests this!

Clearly there is a difference between Adam and Jesus. Adam sinned. Jesus did not. So, to answer the title of your thread....no, they are not the same.

But there is also similiarity, which is even stronger that the "differences." An example is above - the bible stated that Jesus is God only son, and then it stated that Adam is God's son.

Adam sinned. Jesus did not.

Again, a person could easily say
1 - Adam sinned but was not physically punished - why?
2 - Jesus was physically punished but he never sinned - why?
3 - Jesus was baptized - which is the washing away of sins - but he never sinned - why?
3) was it that the Jesus's physical punishment was for the sins he committed while he was Adam?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Fair enough, even though there is nothing in the scripture that suggests this!

With an exclamation point no less. Well, it's good to know that we have an expert on Biblical Hebrew idiom. Welcome!

 

[Big_TJ]

I've always thought that the way it's phrased kinda points to God the Father gettin' it on with Mary to produce Jesus (though surreptitiously, because she considered herself to still be a virgin) but not any of His other children, such as Adam and all the people in Genesis who seem to come out of nowhere.

Well, since "begotten" also mean " to procreate" you might just be right!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Jesus (the pre-incarnate Jesus) was in the Garden with Adam. That would preclude them being the same entity.

 

[Buttercup]

1 - Adam sinned but was not physically punished - why?

Yes he was. God's punishment was to make Adam toil his entire life and to die at the end. He had it easy and carefree before the fall.

2 - Jesus was physically punished but he never sinned - why?

Umm, Jesus was the preordained lamb of God sacrificed for the sins of the world. You might need to catch up on your bible reading.

3 - Jesus was baptized - which is the washing away of sins - but he never sinned - why?

See above.

3) was it that the Jesus's physical punishment was for the sins he committed while he was Adam?

Give me some more reasons why you think Jesus was a reincarnated Adam and I'll come back to this question.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Adam was created. Jesus always was.

 

[Heneni]

Here are two verses that baffle me. The first is the well-known John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (KJV)


According to dictionary.com, begotten means "to procreate or to generate ( as in an offspring) or to cause.

Now, compare this with another well-known section in Luke (Luke 3:23-38) which deals with the genealogy of Jesus. Pay special attention to verse 38:
" which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (KJV)

Now, if Jesus was the only son that God "begat" or "generates" or "cause", how could Adam be referred to as God's son? Are they one and the same or is there something missing?

So that would mean that the father of mankind came to save mankind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus (the pre-incarnate Jesus) was in the Garden with Adam. That would preclude them being the same entity.

Jesus was being baptized when God declared from Heaven that He was well-pleased in His son. Does that preclude God and Jesus from being the same entity?

Adam was created. Jesus always was.

Then what definition are we using for "begotten"? How could an entity that always was have been begotten in the first place?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Jesus was being baptized when God declared from Heaven that He was well-pleased in His son. Does that preclude God and Jesus from being the same entity?

No.

Then what definition are we using for "begotten"? How could an entity that always was have been begotten in the first place?

From Merriam -Webster: "to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth"

Yet trying to put a modern definition on a word used over 300 years ago is difficult.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No.

Glad we cleared that up. :sarcastic

From Merriam -Webster: "to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth"

Right... so Jesus is not an "uncaused cause". Does that make Him not God?

Yet trying to put a modern definition on a word used over 300 years ago is difficult.

Logic and consistency are not "modern" inventions; both have been in existence for well over 300 years. If something was produced, is an effect or is an outgrowth, it can't have "always been".

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Right... so Jesus is not an "uncaused cause". Does that make Him not God?

No. I don't see where the Merriam-Webster definition of Christ being an "outgrowth" of the Father leads you to say that Jesus is an "uncaused cause."

Logic and consistency are not "modern" inventions; both have been in existence for well over 300 years.

What does that have to do with what the definition of "begotten" was 300 years ago?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No. I don't see where the Merriam-Webster definition of Christ being an "outgrowth" of the Father leads you to say that Jesus is an "uncaused cause."

Oops, I was having a brain fart. That makes no sense.

Try this: Jesus, as God took on the form of man. Before that He existed as the Word.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oops, I was having a brain fart. That makes no sense.

Try this: Jesus ,as God took on the form of man. Before that He existed as the Word.

So are you saying that the "begetting" took place when Jesus took on the form of a man?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

We say that the Word is "eternally begotten of the Father". Begotten, and I would say this is the understanding of the Gospel of John, is a technical term for how the Son relates to the Father- that the Father is something like the grounding or bedrock of the God-head, the Son being something like pure actualitas, who is derived "from" and moves outwards "for". In his Incarnation he becomes, on this account, a kind of circuit between man and God: at once being from the Father and living for the Father but now being from human flesh and living for humankind, so that he, in everything he does, lives for both and therefore is what brings them together.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So are you saying that the "begetting" took place when Jesus took on the form of a man?

The body of Christ is what was begotten. Before that He existed as the Word. (We also exist, Scripturally speaking, before we are born into a body.) Christ did not become the Son of God until He was concieved in a human body.