Why "Son of Man" ? Because Cain was the true Son of Adam

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Why "Son of Man" ? Because Cain was the true Son of Adam

Post by Giuseppe »

According to the Hypostasis of the Archons, the Archons raped the carnal Eve while the true Eve was transformed in the Tree of Life.

We know now who were the bastard sons of Eve and of the 7 Archons (including YHWH among them):

You are doing the works of your own father.”

We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me.

(John 8:41-42)

In particular, Abel was the direct son of the carnal Eve and the evil demiurge.

Abel, but not Cain.

Cain was the true son of the spiritual Eve. And the true Son of Adam.

Son of Adam.

But is not "Son of Adam" the same meaning of "Son of Man", Adam being the Primal Man?

Hence, Jesus was the Son of Adam, i.e. Cain.

This fits perfectly what Hegesippus reports about the Naassenes:

This Serpent - they say - is Cain whose sacrifice the God of this world did not accept, while he accepted the bloody sacrifice of Abel because - according to them - the despot of this world enjoys blood. Moreover, this Serpent appeared last in the form of a man at the time of Herod...

(pseudo-Hyppolitus, Elenchos, V)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why "Son of Man" ? Because Cain was the true Son of Adam

Post by Secret Alias »

If you knew halakhah you would know that Cain was understood to have been born from divine seed. God impregnated Eve with his seed.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Why "Son of Man" ? Because Cain was the true Son of Adam

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Son of Man is an inference of the First Man of Genesis 1 you dunderhead. Marcion/Paul even makes this explicit in 1 Cor 15.

Get lost.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why "Son of Man" ? Because Cain was the true Son of Adam

Post by Giuseppe »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:38 pm If you knew halakhah you would know that Cain was understood to have been born from divine seed. God impregnated Eve with his seed.
are you talking about the same god adored by the Cainites? Hardly.

But no wonder if you judaize now even the Cainites.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
klewis
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: Why "Son of Man" ? Because Cain was the true Son of Adam

Post by klewis »

I think we need to have a Gnostic board where this stuff can be placed.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Why "Son of Man" ? Because Cain was the true Son of Adam

Post by perseusomega9 »

Or just merge all his threads into an omnibus
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Why "Son of Man" ? Because Cain was the true Son of Adam

Post by perseusomega9 »

Or we can just post recipes and cat pics in his threads
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Cainites of North Africa

Post by billd89 »

Raoul Vaneigem, Resistance to Christianity. Heresies up to the Beginning of the 18th Century [1993]

Koukeens, Phibionites, Stratiotics, Levitics, Perates, Cainites, Nicolaites — so many mysterious names and local designations of groups anchored with their particularities to a communal faith or the fantasmatic fruits of the heresiologues, who were always anxious to exhibit the chaos of the heterodoxies so as to underline the unity of the “true” belief in a “true” Messiah.

The preeminence of a saving Mother Goddess and a fusional cult of the phallic serpent brought a kind of unity to Naassenism, which was prey to behavioral variations that went from Essene abstinence to the creative love extolled by Simon of Samaria.
...
In all probability, the Perates constituted a later branch of the Naassenes. In his study of WAW, the Hebraic letter that symbolizes the Messiah, Dupont-Sommers derives their name from the Greek word paratai, the “traversers,” those who cross the waters of corruption.[124] Perhaps they were confused with the Cainites, who, according to the Elenchos, estimated that the serpent was “the sign with which God marked Cain to prevent him from being killed by those who encountered him” (V, 15).

In North Africa, the Naassenes of the Cainite type rallied many adepts around a prophetess named Quintilla. These adepts professed the existence of two divinities. As with Marcion much later, their Demuirge identified himself with YHWH. Cain, as much as the Serpent, is YHWH’s expiatory victory: “The serpent is Cain, whom the God of this world did not agree to offer [as a sacrifice], whereas he agreed to the bloody sacrifice of Abel, because the master of this world pleases himself with blood.”[125]

It is possible that the Cainites of North Africa, who were eventually absorbed by the Christianity of the New Prophecy (which was particularly influential in Carthage around 160–170), were convinced to give to their redeemer the generic name of the God who saves, Joshua/Jesus.


...the Cainites, for whom Seth was Adam's brother, and the sectarians attached to Joshua (the Gospel of the Egyptians expresses the equivalence between Seth and Joshua/Jesus.



Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism [2002],p.82:
The heresiologists knew of a gnostic group which actually called themselves Cainites and traced their lineage back to him. According to them, Cain had a greater power than Abel because his power came from above. This idea may have been based on some other tradition about angelic agency in Gen. 4:1. The heretics would have regarded a good angel as the father of Cain. Philo, who sees Cain as a symbol for evil, admits a similarity with Enoch and Melchizedek in that the scripture does not record his death. No doubt this fact was not lost on the Cainites either. It would not be improbable for Cainites to have based traditions about Cain’s translation to heaven and enthronement on scriptural grounds, since we find enthronement traditions about Enoch and Melchizedek based on scriptures’ omission of a report of their death.

Nor was the positive evaluation of Cain restricted only to the Cainites. The Perateans suggested that it was only the demiurge, the god of this world, who did not accept the offering of Cain. Marcion taught that the high god accepted Cain, leaving Abel and Abraham and their descendants behind unsaved.

The groups who viewed Cain positively had merely accepted the charge of being the first-born of Satan which was hurled at them by orthodoxy. However, they turned it into a positive attribution. The later church fathers also said that Cainites took Judas Iscariot as well as Cain as a hero. This "negative value” kind of Judaism or Christianity was a product of the intense three-way polemic going on between Judaism, gnosticism and Christianity—with the gnostic groups being opposed by both sides.

I want to know more about the Cainites of Libya (?): are they a fraternity of thieves, bandits & pirates?
Post Reply