Reincarnation

[Azure24]

Hi all, I don't come here as often anymore...(anyway)
Continuing my tradition of asking stupid questions, i ask this...

Does anyone believe that Mary (Mother of Jesus) and Jesus are reincarnations of Adam and Eve? I also apologise if (very likely) that this has already been discussed before in advance...

Consider this passage (is it a prophecy from God?)

Genesis 3:13-15

Then the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

Lets look at this carefully, God stated that he will do the following:

1) Put emnity between the snake (Satan?) and Eve

2) Put emnity between the snake's (Satan?) offspring (??) and Eve's offspring.

3) Eve's offspring will crush the snake's head

4) But the snake will strike Eve's offspring's heel


...There are some consistancies with this pasage with later passages too...

...And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers...

"You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44-45)

"Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:10)

...The Messiah will crush Satan's head...

The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." (Rom. 16:20)

There are more parallels (particularly with Jesus and Adam) but i will post this another time...

I will also mention that I hold this belief to some extent (it clearly states in passages that Jesus is the second Adam and that Adam is the Son of God)...

 

[greymare]

oooh interesting........ I never thought of it that way.........

 

[Dondi]

Going by your logic, the assertion that Mary and Jesus are reincarnations of Adam and Eve due to the Genesis 3:15 prophesy fall flat in the first place because Adam is not Eve's offspring. Cain, Abel, and Seth were. So in the parallels of mother and child, if you wanted to use that analogy, you would have to have Eve and Cain as the example.

There is a reason for the chronology in Luke 3 that shows the lineage from Jesus all the way back to Adam. When God told the serpent in Genesis 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.", the seed is her descendent. It doesn't necessarily imply that it is her immediate descendent, but there is a plan that will unfold down the generational line. So Luke, who was a doctor by trade, shows that generational line of Jesus that fulfills the offspring requirement.

In regards to Jesus being the second Adam (mind you that adam mean man), there is actually a contrast in Romans 3 and I Corinthians 15 and

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." - Romans 5:17-19

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive....
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." I Corinthians 15:21-22, 45-46

So here we see that whereas Adam's sin caused the Fall of Man, and the curse on down the ages, Jesus was sent to reverse that curse, and bring us to righteousness, since He is righteous. I really don't see how Jesus could be the reincarnation of Adam, for that would mean that He still carried Adam's sin and curse.

 

[wil]

Going by your logic, the assertion that Mary and Jesus are reincarnations of Adam and Eve due to the Genesis 3:15 prophesy fall flat in the first place because Adam is not Eve's offspring. Cain, Abel, and Seth were. So in the parallels of mother and child, if you wanted to use that analogy, you would have to have Eve and Cain as the example.

Namaste Dondi,

Not so, reincarnation does not imply that we come back in the same relationship or even sex. So a father daughter could come back as father son and switching parental relationships. Interestingly enough in one version of Genesis Eve is sort of Adam's offspring.

 

[Thomas]

Does anyone believe that Mary (Mother of Jesus) and Jesus are reincarnations of Adam and Eve?

St Paul speaks of the 'old man' and the new ... see Romans 5:
"... just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned ... of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come ... for if by the one man’s offence death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ ... for as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous ... But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Thus St Paul speaks of a 'type' rather than a reincarnation, which is too narrow and too riddled with contradiction to be a viable interpretation.

The treatment of Mary as the 'new Eve' emerged slowly and cautiously in the teachings of the Fathers ... but again, not as a reincarnation, but a counterpoint.

In traditional Christian art, the Blessed Virgin was often shown standing with the serpent underfoot.

Thomas

 

[Dondi]

Namaste Dondi,

Not so, reincarnation does not imply that we come back in the same relationship or even sex. So a father daughter could come back as father son and switching parental relationships. Interestingly enough in one version of Genesis Eve is sort of Adam's offspring.

Still doesn't diminish the fact that one cannot derive a biblical case for reincarnation of Adam and Eve based on the passages in question.

 

[mee]

Hi all, I don't come here as often anymore...(anyway)
Continuing my tradition of asking stupid questions, i ask this...

Does anyone believe that Mary (Mother of Jesus) and Jesus are reincarnations of Adam and Eve? I also apologise if (very likely) that this has already been discussed before in advance...

Consider this passage (is it a prophecy from God?)

Genesis 3:13-15

Then the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

Lets look at this carefully, God stated that he will do the following:

1) Put emnity between the snake (Satan?) and Eve

2) Put emnity between the snake's (Satan?) offspring (??) and Eve's offspring.

3) Eve's offspring will crush the snake's head

4) But the snake will strike Eve's offspring's heel


...There are some consistancies with this pasage with later passages too...

...And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers...

"You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44-45)

"Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:10)

...The Messiah will crush Satan's head...

The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." (Rom. 16:20)

There are more parallels (particularly with Jesus and Adam) but i will post this another time...

I will also mention that I hold this belief to some extent (it clearly states in passages that Jesus is the second Adam and that Adam is the Son of God)...

Genesis 3;15 the first ever prophecy in the bible . and yes , Jesus will crush satan in the head .
which will mean the end of him, crushing ones head leads to death .


but a heel wound is not fatal ,and when Jesus was put to death it was not the end of him , because now he is a reigning king in Gods heavenly kingdom , and we are now well along into that first ever prophecy in the bible .
Even while Adam and Eve were still in the garden of Eden, Jehovah foretold how He would resolve the issues.


He foretold the coming of a "seed" who, after having his heel bruised, would fatally bruise Satan in the head.—Genesis 3:15.

 

[mee]

-

Consider this passage (is it a prophecy from God?)

Genesis 3:13-15

quote]
Genesis 3;15
That prophecy sets the theme for the whole Bible, including Revelation.

 

[Azure24]

Hi all again,

This could be going to far but perhaps possibly there were many incarnations of Jesus such as Adam, Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph (the prince of Egypt), Joshua, Jeshua and finally Jesus and many other characters from the Old Testament to the extent that the entire Christian Bible becomes part of the story of his long struggle to attain Christhood.

But what makes this Eve/Mary connection important is how it best explains, in a logical manner, the cosmic reasons for Jesus' sacrifice and death, and how it satisfied divine justice. The ancient concept of divine justice can be summed up beautifully in the Bible as "an eye for an eye." This concept of divine justice was not limited to just the early Hebrews because it is a concept that is practically universal. The more ancient religions of the East referred to the concept of "an eye for an eye" as "karma." It demands that transgressors pay for their own transgressions. No one else can pay for your own transgressions but you. Thus, because it was Adam and Eve who transgressed, it would have to be Adam and Eve themselves who paid. God's judgment upon them was that Eve would have to bear a son who would suffer as a consequence for their transgression. The only real and logical way this could be done would be through reincarnation. Eve would have to reincarnate to bear a son - the reincarnation of Adam. His tremendous suffering at the cross (and the suffering it would cause herself) would satisfy divine justice and pay for the transgression committed in Eden.

There are also these sentences:

[reffering to Adam] "who was a pattern of the coming one [Christ]" (Rom. 5:14)

[referring to Christ] "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature" (Col. 1:14-15)

Adam is given rule of God's creation.

"Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Gen. 1:28)

Jesus is the ruler of God's creation.

"These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation." (Rev. 3:14)

Adam is reffered to as the first father:

"Your first father sinned; your spokesmen rebelled against me." (Isaiah 43:27)

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it but could Jesus be referring to Adam as well as God?

"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30-33)

Jesus is Alpha and Omega (the first and the last).

"I am the First and the Last." (Rev. 1:17)

 

[Thomas]

Hi Azure —

This could be going to far but perhaps possibly there were many incarnations of Jesus ...

First off the idea of reincarnation as you present it runs contrary to Christian Tradition, so this would have to considered a personal speculation.

"Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." Matthew 8:13-16
This text is sometimes offered as a prooftext in support of reincarnation, but it is a misreading. When the disciples replied "some say this, some say that" they refer to the spirit that descends on the prophet, not that He is a reincarnation of the actual person.

... The ancient concept of divine justice can be summed up beautifully in the Bible as "an eye for an eye."

But Christ did not teach an eye for an eye — His message was one of forgiveness — Love supercedes justice.

No one else can pay for your own transgressions but you.

In the East, perhaps, but not in the Abrahamic Traditions. In this instance the transgression is against God, and God can choose to exercise Mercy or not, according to His will. There is nothing man can do can that might 'set things right' and 'require' God to grant him salvation ... God is under no human obligation, other than that which He chooses, and the obligation is one of Love, not justice.

Catholics (for example) say man can co-operate with God and exercise a degree of free will in choosing to accept Christ or not. Protestants would say that even that is not his option, he is either damned, or not, according to God's will.

Jesus is the ruler of God's creation.

Jesus is God, not just a man.
Adam is just a man, not God.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Namaste Azure,

While I don't "believe" they are reincarnations as you describe I don't dictate that they are not, and feel there is no harm in the exploration and discussion. Who knows where it might lead. straight to hell some might say

First off the idea of reincarnation as you present it runs contrary to Christian Tradition, so this would have to considered a personal speculation.

Namaste Thomas,

Interpretation of biblical texts, it is all personal speculation, which has been speculated, argued, fisticuffs and wars fought over. It is a matter of whose personal speculation one believes.

This text is sometimes offered as a prooftext in support of reincarnation, but it is a misreading. When the disciples replied "some say this, some say that" they refer to the spirit that descends on the prophet, not that He is a reincarnation of the actual person.

Again, which interpretation is the misleading one is upto the interpreter. The author of the passage wrote down oral tradition, decades later, what the disciples said actually said is unknown and what the meant in regards to that is obviously open for debate.

Catholics (for example) say man can co-operate with God and exercise a degree of free will in choosing to accept Christ or not. Protestants would say that even that is not his option, he is either damned, or not, according to God's will.

I'm not a Catholic so I can't speak to what they believe or not, but as a Protestant I can say that we get into this discussion.

Jesus is God, not just a man.
Adam is just a man, not God.

But once they ate of the apple they became like one of us, (or as one of us) knowing everything, good and evil and they were tossed out of the garden so they didn't continue to eat and become immortal (completely like us) so saith the Lord.

 

[Dondi]

Catholics (for example) say man can co-operate with God and exercise a degree of free will in choosing to accept Christ or not. Protestants would say that even that is not his option, he is either damned, or not, according to God's will.

I take issue with catagorizing all Protestants as believers in the fundamentals of Calvinistic theology. For starters, "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.", implies an action on our part to respond to God's gift of salvation.

This is an issue apart from the OP and can be further discussed in another thread (though there are probably plenty of back threads to revive). But I just wanted to make that point clear that Calvinism is not universal to the Protestant world.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Interpretation of biblical texts, it is all personal speculation, which has been speculated, argued, fisticuffs and wars fought over.

I don't think you can say that, not really. Everybody is free to interpret anything to mean anything they like, but the fact remains there is the orthodox interpretation of a text, be it Scripture, or Shakespeare ... and if you listen to a Shakespeare scholar, there's stuff in there you'd never get in a month of Sundays.

Up until the Reformation there was Apostolic Tradition — and up to today, that tradition continues in Roman Catholicism, and the Eastern Patriarchates.

Even the Reformers — Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al., would be horrified at the modernist interpretation of sola scriptura — they were often far quicker and more exacting in the application of the heretic's stake than the Catholic Church.

The Doctrine of the Church is based on Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the unanimous consent of the Fathers — some of whom were disciples of the disciples — in fact we have a more secure interpretation of Scripture than we have of Shakespeare.

However fallible you determine that to be depends upon a question of faith, but reasonably and logically there is no better nor viable alternative, and without that, it seems to me it's really a case of the blind leading the blind.

Thomas

 

[wil]

I don't think you can say that, not really. Everybody is free to interpret anything to mean anything they like, but the fact remains there is the orthodox interpretation of a text, be it Scripture, or Shakespeare ... and if you listen to a Shakespeare scholar, there's stuff in there you'd never get in a month of Sundays.

Up until the Reformation there was Apostolic Tradition — and up to today, that tradition continues in Roman Catholicism, and the Eastern Patriarchates.

Namaste Thomas,

Sure I can. There have been fights, wars, disagreements over almost all tenents of the Christian faith, hence the reformation, hence all the denominations, hence all those that leave Christianity, hence all the non-practicing Catholics in the world. There were many traditions and understandings in Christendom prior to the Catholic Church. The whole universal thing was a control issue (still is) and even after that there were those "heretics" that believed other than the Orthodox view prior to the Reformation. The Reformation was a split with those that were previously in agreement with the Orthodox view.

Obviously the question and the discussion here is not one of the conventional orthodox view. For the most part we know your answer in this regard. Not to say all Catholics agree with you though.

I've seen Bishops preside over interfaith services and had great discussions with them and various priests and monseignors (I don't know the hierarchy) over metaphor, analogy, metaphysics, orthodoxy and the like and many of them are definitely more open than the flock.

 

[Dream]

Azure24, I've seen a few of your posts and its really too bad you don't post here more often. Hopefully its because your too busy.

Does anyone believe that Mary (Mother of Jesus) and Jesus are reincarnations of Adam and Eve?

1) Put emnity between the snake (Satan?) and Eve
2) Put emnity between the snake's (Satan?) offspring (??) and Eve's offspring.
3) Eve's offspring will crush the snake's head
4) But the snake will strike Eve's offspring's heel

...There are some consistancies with this pasage with later passages too........And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers..."You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44-45)........The Messiah will crush Satan's head...The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." (Rom. 16:20)

It might be Eve and Cain that we are talking about, Azure24 -- not Adam and Eve. You mentioned John 8:44-45 as part of your idea, which could refer to Cain as the devil because when translated 'Devil' is 'Accuser'. Remember this: "...For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion. "(Jude 1:11) Perhaps Cain was refused by the L!RD because he made an accusation (curse) against Abel along with his offering. This would make Cain the first Balaam. The sin of Balaam is much worse than Eve or Adam's, perhaps requiring an anti-Balaam to repair the resulting damage. It is a terrible thing to be named a descendant of Cain or of Balaam.

Try not to think of Adam's transgression as a mystical substance that we are all guilty for, but more like a classic example of something we would all do in the same circumstances. In that sense, Adam's judgment falls upon us all since we all do the same things as him - not that we are paying for his single mistake. If I say you are a descendant of Cain, that makes you even worse than a descendant of Adam, because you will fall under the same judgment as him. That is what happened in John 8:44-45. Someone was accused of that -- but that had nothing to do with their physical lineage. Similarly, some people were called vipers, which presupposed a judgment that was due to them. This was a terrible insult, as such people were considered the butt of G!d's joke.

As for the reincarnation, I don't really understand how that would work. If I transgress, my transgression has reactions throughout the future of time and space; but its greatest impact is upon my immediate surroundings -- my descendants, family, and friends, enemies, etc. From there it radiates out like a rippling wave. Throw a rock in a pond, and the effects eventually become infinitely diverse and tiny. It almost seems like a picture lesson to tell us that nothing we do can truly be undone.

About Eve: Her remedy is referred to here, although I don't know if this is one of those passages people say were added to dampen women's influence in the church:

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Its actually pretty difficult to understand what it means, but I suppose if it were an addition (although I'm really hesitant to admit that possibility) then it might be a misquote from some previous truism, because it would have been easier to add a previously heard sound-byte than to formulate a completely new phrase. It refers to the prophecy given to Eve, that her 'Seed' would squash the serpent's head, which is another way of saying that the believers would all participate in that action. It does go along with the other verse you mentioned about 'Be excellent in what is good....and the G!d of peace will soon crush Satan underneath your feet'.

 

[seattlegal]

About Eve: Her remedy is referred to here, although I don't know if this is one of those passages people say were added to dampen women's influence in the church:

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Its actually pretty difficult to understand what it means, but I suppose if it were an addition (although I'm really hesitant to admit that possibility) then it might be a misquote from some previous truism, because it would have been easier to add a previously heard sound-byte than to formulate a completely new phrase. It refers to the prophecy given to Eve, that her 'Seed' would squash the serpent's head, which is another way of saying that the believers would all participate in that action. It does go along with the other verse you mentioned about 'Be excellent in what is good....and the G!d of peace will soon crush Satan underneath your feet'.

Misquote from a previous truism? The passage from Genesis 3 continues:

16 To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”​

One thing I can tell you: a woman faces the indescribable torture of childbirth and the possibility of death for each new life she births into the world.

 

[Dream]

I'm aware of the seed prophecy, but here's the rub:

Paul always argues his case using scripture, and never just declares things out of the blue. He wouldn't just throw something out there, and I'm not catching where he's coming from with this argument. I have read in Hans Kǚng's new book (which I now own) that the name of the female apostle Junia was edited to read 'Junias', a man's name. I read elsewhere that this likely had to do with consolidation of power against gnostic influences (although gnostic influences got involved anyway). I also read this was probably not the only edit against women teachers. Even so, I can imagine that Eve's beguilement was a commonly taught item. The clear connections between it, the Balaam story, and Korah's rebellion are too important not to have been. Perhaps the use of the story faded, its symbolism abandoned? Perhaps a presbyter made use of this to constrain the sisters from teaching? What about I Peter 3:7 "weaker vessel" ?

The woman was given pain in childbirth, and the man was given thorns, thistles, sweat and lots of work for his daily sustenance. In I Timothy 2 we are told the reason Paul doesn't allow women to teach men is that 1. The man was made first. (So?) 2. The woman was beguiled -- not the man. (Ok? ) How does not allowing women to teach follow from points 1 & 2, unless they are being regarded as more evil than men? That doesn't make sense either, because you could easily argue that they are less evil and less likely to alter doctrines than men. Maybe it means they just don't get it? Anyway, the man wasn't beguiled but he still sinned. How come he is a better teacher?

This beguiling that is mentioned is the same thing that happened in the wilds of Canaan between Moab (country that hired Balaam in the 1st place) and Israel. It has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence or cunning. Moab beguiled (tempted) Israel to sin using Balaam's advice in order to cause the L!RD to act against Israel. The symbols are equivalent to Eve and the serpent, Cain and Abel. Eve was beguiled in the garden, and Israel was beguiled in the wild, but the outcome was the same - a punishment, a plague, and nearly a curse upon the heirs. Israel was beguiled, but Moses and Phineas were not. Korah (also from Jude 1:11) accused Moses before the L!RD for personal gain and was destroyed, but not before he had led a rebellion. What does it have to do with women not teaching? It is presented as some sort of pageantry or symbolism, but I don't see it. Maybe its because I'm not married?

 

[seattlegal]

We are talking about Hellenistic Greece here, are we not? I would venture to guess that not having women teach and having them cover their heads in submission would be a survival tactic for the Christian church within such a misogynistic culture. (Christian women converts were especially in danger from their unbelieving husbands, and were warned to be submissive and fearful towards them.)

Jude speaks about apostates that have corrupted the church. Perhaps not having women teach would be a mechanism so that these men cannot blame women for leading them astray, like Adam blamed Eve.

 

[Thomas]

There have been fights, wars, disagreements over almost all tenents of the Christian faith ...

But that does not disprove them, nor render the doctrine invalid ... it just demonstrates there are those who want it 'their way'.

The whole universal thing was a control issue (still is)

The Apostles and their successors were given a Divine Fiat, and the right of authority in those matters. If they did not exercise that right and duty in the face of error, it would have been a betrayal of Christ along with Judas.

The error is in assuming that because you are not sure, no-one can be sure. You cannot prove that the content of the Gospel is doubtful, nor Apostolic Tradition is dubious ... but you can choose to ignore it.

You exercise your right to interpret Scripture as you so choose, which is your decision, but you cannot thereby insist that such is the only viable means or method, or that any other means is invalid.

Thomas

 

[lunamoth]

You exercise your right to interpret Scripture as you so choose, which is your decision, but you cannot thereby insist that such is the only viable means or method, or that any other means is invalid.

Thomas

Exactly. It's just as much a matter of trying to control to say that a traditional understanding is wrong.