Talk:Adam Kadmon
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theAdam Kadmon article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives (index):1Auto-archiving period:3 months  |
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Archives | |
Index
| |
This page has archives. Sections older than90 days may be auto-archived byClueBot III if there are more than 5. |
It looks like the claim that the earthly Adam appeared first but was not created first, is based on the above quoted Jewish encyclopedia falsely claiming that these are Pauline dogmatics. Paul does not state this in Chronicles 15:45-50 but rather that the last Adam is the spiritual Adam—Jesus Christ. The reference to his “spiritual body” is an allusion to his imperishable, post-resurrection body, animated by the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. The section then goes on to quote from the Midrash and Gonsticism which is unrelated to Pauline eschatology and should be removed/reworked.12:27, 7 February 2021
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link onAdam Kadmon. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)23:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains the text "The remarkable contradiction between the two above-quoted passages of Genesis", but I don't see two quotations from Genesis above this text. The quote should be added back.Bayle Shanks (talk)05:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are mentioned in the previous paragraph. I'll fix it.Editor2020 (talk)22:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The term Kabbalism is generally used pejoratively by critics. I would suggest using a more neutral term that doesn't take sides. --76.168.1.85 (talk)21:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Editors,
On behalf of Kadmon OTMI Ádám, I am writing to you regarding the current article where the “Zionistic kabbalah” section contains the following claim:“In Zionistic kabbalah, Adam Kadmon is also the last man, the Jewish messiah, whom God will allow to last until everything else in the universe ceases to exist. Then he puts him into an eternal sleep. His soul is then sent back in time to before his universe was created to become Adam Kadmon.”This formulation raises serious issues:• No source is provided – there is no reference to either primary sources (e.g. Lurianic Kabbalah, Gershom Scholem) or reliable secondary literature.• It diverges from traditional kabbalistic interpretation – both the Encyclopaedia Judaica and the Jewish Virtual Library clearly state: Adam Kadmon is the first archetypal state of creation, not a historical Messiah and not “the last man.”• Jewish Virtual Library: Adam Kadmon – entry• Encyclopaedia Judaica (via Scholem): Kabbalah and Adam Kadmon entries.• Potentially misleading – the passage presents as fact something that is likely a modern speculation and does not reflect academically accepted views.Request:Please either:• remove this section until a reliable source is provided, or• clearly mark it as “unsourced / disputed claim.”This also serves as a kind of preliminary “personality rights” notice, since the content currently linked to the name “Kadmon Ádám” is misleading and distorts the archetypal meaning attached to the name.Note: This is not about ownership of the name, but about accuracy of content in line with Wikipedia’s core policy of verifiability.With thanks and respect,Kadmon OTMI ÁdámDr. Bálint István Ágoston (talk)12:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
