• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Seed of the Woman.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Yeshua is shown, conclusively, to be Messiah, by reason of his authenticatable claim to being the firstborn son of Adam (despite the fact that Cain acquired that title through graft, literally, Genesis 2:21). -----The original messianic-prophesy was that the "seed of the woman" (which at the time of the prophesy was still insider her) would be the messianic-personage who would save Adam and Eve from their original sin. Cain was born of the "seed of the woman" not long after the prophesy was given, creating the paradox concerning Yeshua's relationship to Cain: both vying for the title "firstborn of creation." ----Solve the paradox, and Yeshua's messianic-claim becomes completely undeniable.

Cain acquired the title "firstborn of creation" (he's the first produce of the "seed of the woman"; the first human being "born," i.e., the "firstborn of creation"). -----But he acquired the title through "graft," literally. Such that we need know little more than that to be able to argue conclusively, to any able bodied and minded Jew, that Yeshua is the only person other than Cain to have any claim whatsoever to the seat of David.


John
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
John the Baptist refers says those coming to see him are the spawn of vipers, so when Jesus comes to see him whose spawn is he? (Luke 3:7) Is Jesus the spawn of vipers, since he comes to see John and is baptized by John? How is it possible that humans can be their spawn? What about when Jesus calls someone the sons of Cain and indicates this is the opposite of being a son of Abraham? We know that Cain's children die in the flood, yet Jesus calls some men the sons of Cain. (John 8:41) So did Cain's descendants not die? You see it is not about genetics at all.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yeshua is shown, conclusively, to be Messiah, by reason of his authenticatable claim to being the firstborn son of Adam (despite the fact that Cain acquired that title through graft, literally, Genesis 2:21). -----The original messianic-prophesy was that the "seed of the woman" (which at the time of the prophesy was still insider her) would be the messianic-personage who would save Adam and Eve from their original sin. Cain was born of the "seed of the woman" not long after the prophesy was given, creating the paradox concerning Yeshua's relationship to Cain: both vying for the title "firstborn of creation." ----Solve the paradox, and Yeshua's messianic-claim becomes completely undeniable.

Cain acquired the title "firstborn of creation" (he's the first produce of the "seed of the woman"; the first human being "born," i.e., the "firstborn of creation"). -----But he acquired the title through "graft," literally. Such that we need know little more than that to be able to argue conclusively, to any able bodied and minded Jew, that Yeshua is the only person other than Cain to have any claim whatsoever to the seat of David.


John
Really? Christianity was founded by a woman I no man serious in explaining it.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Yeshua is shown, conclusively, to be Messiah, by reason of his authenticatable claim to being the firstborn son of Adam (despite the fact that Cain acquired that title through graft, literally, Genesis 2:21). -----The original messianic-prophesy was that the "seed of the woman" (which at the time of the prophesy was still insider her) would be the messianic-personage who would save Adam and Eve from their original sin. Cain was born of the "seed of the woman" not long after the prophesy was given, creating the paradox concerning Yeshua's relationship to Cain: both vying for the title "firstborn of creation." ----Solve the paradox, and Yeshua's messianic-claim becomes completely undeniable.

Cain acquired the title "firstborn of creation" (he's the first produce of the "seed of the woman"; the first human being "born," i.e., the "firstborn of creation"). -----But he acquired the title through "graft," literally. Such that we need know little more than that to be able to argue conclusively, to any able bodied and minded Jew, that Yeshua is the only person other than Cain to have any claim whatsoever to the seat of David.


John

Hmmmm.......... but the nativity stories are junk.
Hmmmmm......... but a Galilean peasant couldn't have been related to a Souther King.
Hmmmmmm ............ But Yeshua never claimed to be anything but a Son of man, seeking the return of the laws, all the laws, including the poor laws.

Nope.............. you've got all this wrong. imo.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
John the Baptist refers says those coming to see him are the spawn of vipers, so when Jesus comes to see him whose spawn is he? (Luke 3:7) Is Jesus the spawn of vipers, since he comes to see John and is baptized by John? How is it possible that humans can be their spawn? What about when Jesus calls someone the sons of Cain and indicates this is the opposite of being a son of Abraham? We know that Cain's children die in the flood, yet Jesus calls some men the sons of Cain. (John 8:41) So did Cain's descendants not die? You see it is not about genetics at all.

. . . I agree that it's all about genetics. And you might be surprised to find that genetics prove Yeshua's messianic claims beyond any reasonable doubt.

I don't know how familiar you are with the theological dynamics/theories of the Flood, but many educated theologians claim that the design (purpose) of the Flood was to wipe out the nephilim (Cain's descendants) so that they wouldn't completely contaminate the pure line of Seth, coming through Noah (the nephilim infiltrate the line of Seth, Gen. 6).

It's actually the opposite. God doesn't cause the Flood to wipe out the nephilim. The attempt to wipe out the nephilim is itself an attempt to deny the birth of Christ. Christ line must come through the line of Cain and Seth or he has no right to his messianic claim.

If the nephilim got wiped out completely, i.e., if Cain's line was eliminated in the flood, then Yeshua cannot be Messiah.

But God slipped the principalities and powers a fast one. And it's writ large in the text of the scripture.

Naamah survived the flood as Noah's wife. And Naamah is nephilim (from the line of Cain). Noah's sons and daughters are of the line of Seth because Noah's genes purify the birth of his offspring (scripture says his line is pure, i.e., through Seth). . . So how does Cain's line continue after the flood if Noah's genes purify Naamah's genes through procreation?

Although Noah's sons are not nephilim, because of Noah's genes, a strange event happens in the text whose meaning is clear as day, but which the expositors ignore and gloss over. One of Noah's sons "uncovers Noah's nakedness." In the Tanakh, this is a euphemism for having sex with a man's wife.

In Jewish scripture we find that Noah starts getting drunk after the Flood because he was given a commandment to be fruitful and multiply, but finds himself unable to impregnate Naamah after the flood. Senescence has set in. Noah's son, seeing the depression setting into Noah, hatches a scheme. He and Naamah conspire to make Noah think he's fulfilling God's commandment by having a son such that Naamah and Ham have sex giving birth to Canaan.

Noah takes one look at Canaan coming out of the womb and knows exactly what has taken place. Although Noah's son's genes are pure, by reason of Noah's genes, they nevertheless have enough nephilim blood that when Ham's genes mix with Naamah, who is fully nephilim, Canaan comes out exhibiting the full traits of the nephilim. Noah knows what happened and is forced to curse Canaan right out of the womb since he knows his birth means Cain's lineage has survived the flood hidden in Naamah and Ham's genes.

Though in much theology Canaan's birth thwarts the purpose of the Flood, in God's design it befouls the attempt to destroy the birth of the true "firstborn of creation" who must come through the line of Cain as well as Seth.


John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Hmmmm.......... but the nativity stories are junk.
Hmmmmm......... but a Galilean peasant couldn't have been related to a Souther King.
Hmmmmmm ............ But Yeshua never claimed to be anything but a Son of man, seeking the return of the laws, all the laws, including the poor laws.

Nope.............. you've got all this wrong. imo.

. . . Ok. . . From what I surmise of your perspective I can see where you're con-textually correct.


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Cain acquired the title "firstborn of creation" (he's the first produce of the "seed of the woman"; the first human being "born," i.e., the "firstborn of creation"). -----But he acquired the title through "graft," literally. Such that we need know little more than that to be able to argue conclusively, to any able bodied and minded Jew, that Yeshua is the only person other than Cain to have any claim whatsoever to the seat of David.


John

The key comes from the word "graft":

a shoot or twig inserted into a slit on the trunk or stem of a living plant, from which it receives sap.synonyms:scion, cutting, shoot, offshoot, bud, sprout, sprig"​

Isaiah 11 claims Messiah will sprout as a "shoot" out of the "root" of Jesse. Zechariah calls King Messiah the "Branch" (and the word means a basal-shoot). Isaiah 53 says Messiah will "sprout" (same Hebrew word for a scion) from dry ground. -----In every case the Tanakh's association of the Messiah as a "sprout" or "sprig," or "scion," uses the Hebrew word speaking specifically of a basal-shoot coming out of the original root.

What's that got to do with authenticating Yeshua's messianic claim? Pretty much everything.

You see a tree, growing out of the "root" of the tree, is a clone of the root. They're identical. The tree growing out of the root is genetically identical to the root. But since they're genetically identical, they can't propagate but in two ways. One is as a "genet" and the other is sexually. A genet is a clonal colony of clones. Every single member of a genet is genetically identical. The fruit of such trees will not only taste the same, identical, but they will literally taste like the tree itself.

In deep meditation on the first chapter of Genesis, Rashi throws out a real looloo. He says the trees of the garden were cursed with Adam because they committed the botanical facsimile of his original sin; their sin mirrors Adam's original sin?

According to Rashi the result of the botanical sin was that the fruit of the tree no longer tasted like the tree itself. In other words, the trees in the garden were no longer produced as basal-shoots forming a genet, such that every tree was genetically identical, all the fruit tasting like the roots and tree themselves. On the contrary, they began to taste different because of some mixing with other kinds of trees: they began to experiment with sexual reproduction rather than clonal, asexual, reproduction.

Obligatory death as a result of senescence – natural aging – may not have come into existence for more than a billion years after life first appeared. This form of programmed death seems to have arisen at about the same time that cells began experimenting with sex in connection with reproduction. It may have been the ultimate loss of innocence.

William Clark, Sex and the Origins of Death, (Oxford University Press, 1996), prologue XI.​



John
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
. . . I have an idea. It's just not yours. And that seems to offend you as though no one should dare have one but you?


John
Soren kierkegaard said "people insist on freedom of speech as compensation for freedom of thought which they rarely use"

Nothings changed.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
No, I just said otherwise, so your agreement must be with someone else.

Ok. I misspoke. But I still addressed the fact that Jesus can legitimately speak of sons of Cain since Cain's genetics did make it through the flood. My point is that there's a scientific explanation for how Yeshua can be the "firstborn of creation."


John
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
. . . Are you giving me a speech? I didn't pay for one you know.



John
If I took mindless rambling about the bible seriously I would be an atheist. Instead it's just stupid. But hey free speech is allowed!!!! So what were you saying we burn the witch based on what exactly?
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ok. I misspoke. But I still addressed the fact that Jesus can legitimately speak of sons of Cain since Cain's genetics did make it through the flood. My point is that there's a scientific explanation for how Yeshua can be the "firstborn of creation."
John

You have no proof of God, Adam and Chav'vah, Cain and Able, the flood, etc.

*
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You have no proof of God, Adam and Chav'vah, Cain and Able, the flood, etc.

*
Of course there is no proof, a charlatan needs no proof just belief. The real question what kind of charlatan is the author? Hijacking the bible has a long history of being hijacked. it started in my degree theology. Today we just hijack nature more educated more easily to be self deceived. Seems smarter to use science terms.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
If I took mindless rambling about the bible seriously I would be an atheist. Instead it's just stupid. But hey free speech is allowed!!!! So what were you saying we burn the witch based on what exactly?

. . . What do you consider mindful rambling about the Bible?


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
You have no proof of God, Adam and Chav'vah, Cain and Able, the flood, etc.

*

. . . I agree with you. But for those who take the Bible seriously, I have a sound scientific theory not just for how Yeshua can be the legitimate "firstborn of creation," but one that answers numerous other oddities in the Tanakh.


John
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Ok. I misspoke. But I still addressed the fact that Jesus can legitimately speak of sons of Cain since Cain's genetics did make it through the flood. My point is that there's a scientific explanation for how Yeshua can be the "firstborn of creation."


John
This forum is the closest thing I know to a church that allows multiple interpretations. What I take exception to is the insistence on your part that Judaism can be inherited genetically which I think is an accusation against Jews that only blows back upon us, as its not grounded. Levitical service which is limited to only one tribe might be inherited, but it is also not about genetics. I can become a Levite through adoption. An extreme operational factor of Judaism is that anyone can join and that all blood is equal, which is important when considering the atonement as explained in the current Christian canon. Our connection to Judaism depends upon it, so the insistence that there are genes which cause Jesus to be the Christ is really just sawing off the limb we sit upon. This has no support in the Bible as I pointed out in your thread before, and it basically undermines the possibility of Christianity at all. Worse than that it is I think an accusation against the circumcised which if it were to spread to other Christians then it would embarrass us. It is like heaping coals of fire upon one's own head. I see it as a bomb that could blow us to smithereens were it to catch on, and then what? Sure there are some serious problems in Christianity today, but do we deserve to be destroyed? I'm going to lean towards no for the moment.
 
Top