| Poster | Thread |
| | Re: Why is this a true statement, though not literally found in the Bible? | |
Ormly said
Quote:
THINK! Jesus, "son of Adam" was of necessity because Adam failed. All that you posit from Ephesians is and was, AFTER THE FACT OF ADAM"S TRANSGRESSION.
Dear Ormly,
There is no scripture which calls Jesus a "son of Adam". That is the [i][b]whole[/i][/b] point.
Adam was a son of God, and so is Jesus Christ THE Son of God.
When Adam sinned in Eden, he and Eve lost whatever glory had naturally been theirs because they had been created in God's image.
There was never a plan in God's mind to make Adam any purer than He had created him, because he was already pure enough for God to walk with him every day.
You are, by trying to work qualities into Adam's constitution and relationship (with God), missing a very important truth out of your cogitations, which is that God always had intended to send His Son, the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world, from before He ever founded the world.
And, He always had intended to pour out the Holy Spirit on men and women, to bring us into a better fellowship with Himself than Adam had (apparently) lost.
Rather than trying to flatten out the contours of the spiritual history of man's relationship with God, it would be better if you thought of those differences as necessary growth pangs, and not errors.
Certainly, those who have engaged with you in this thread, to whom you cannot offer scripture to back up your doctrine, are right to keep challenging your invitations to read your mind or agree, when you cannot offer any substantial reason they should, other than your own opinion.
Jesus was the last Adam, but He did not have a sinful nature although He partook of flesh and blood.
My question to you about the resurrection, was because that is when 'flesh and bone' is mentioned by both Jesus (Luke 24:39) and Paul (Eph 5:30), and both have to be read by us, (so long after He was on earth either before or after His resurrection), in that light, and the light of Paul's comment to the Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 5:16
Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know [i]Him thus[/i] no longer.
Jesus plunged into death and became the first fruit from among the dead when His Father raised Him again because death could not hold Him (because He was not a sinner).
We do the same - plunge into His death, acknowledging our sin for which He died - and then receive His Spirit, by which we are raised to walk in newness of life, God having become our Father also. This could not be simpler.
The difficult bit is [u]dying with Christ[/u] and [u]accepting to be grafted into that death[/u], but unless we do, we won't even live with Him, let alone reign with Him as a 'more than conquerer'.
(Thus) we become sons of God on God's terms. Thank you Father. :-D
The terms are different from Adam's sonship. Agreed. So what?
|
|  2007/9/2 15:36 | |
| | Re: | | Dorcas, do you recall this in Luke:
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
...... Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, [b]which was the son of Adam[/b], which was the son of God.
Luke 3:23,38 (KJV)
And of course this, on Mary's side that only goes back to Abraham and we know he stems from Adam:
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren ...." Matthew 1:1-2 (KJV)
So what's the problem that Jesus would not be a son, a begat of Adam? How else do you suppose His humanity had it's beginning?
Now please don't tell me I'm wrong about this.
|
| | 2007/9/2 15:52 | |
| | Re: Why is this a true statement, though not literally found in the Bible? | |
Hi Katy-did,
I thought you might find these scriptures useful to ponder. I hope you don't mind...
John 10
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '?
35 "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
36 "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
1 John 3, 1 John 4: 12 - 17, John 17
|
| | 2007/9/2 15:54 | |
| | Re: | | This whole 'Plan A' and 'Plan B' business is confusing me slightly.
Let me put it to you another way. I have read someone's post on this thread, saying that [i]God never needs a Plan B because His first plan cannot 'fail'[/i] (rephrased, I can't remember the exact wording).
If this is true, then taking that into another area regarding sin (as an illustration), if God never needs a Plan B, then that would mean that His Plan A is that every man sins. This is complete madness, because God is holy, and He hates sin. He intended perfection on earth, 'Plan A', but Adam and Eve chose contrary to that, and so every man does indeed sin. However, God's new 'plan' was to send His one and only Son into the world to pay for our sin.
So regarding what Ormly is saying (if I'm not mistaken) about Adam originally purposed to be 'Jesus' and praised by all men, is not heresy at all. Adam simply chose to disobey God. And although God's 'Plan A' would therefore not have suceeded, He had a 'Plan B'.
God has a 'plan' or a will, if you like. However, it is not necessarily one direct path. He has, as Ormly says, 'all the bases covered'. Everything is still in His almighty and faultless control.
I think rather than just going for the jugular of a new idea that you don't necessarily agree with, it is necessary to [i]try[/i] and see where it comes from. I've by no means come to any conclusions regarding this issue, however I think (emphasis on that word) that I can see where Ormly is coming from.
Am I mistaken? |
| | 2007/9/2 15:58 | |
| | Re: | | Thank you richardf for your encouragement in this. I was beginning to wonder if this forum was the "Twilight Zone".
Indeed, God did have all the bases covered insofar as His foreknowledge permits Him all knowledge in His planning for success in all that He purposes and undertakes, whether it is for us or for Himself. In this it is paramount that we understand that His Ultimate intention is for a vast family of sons, all to be groomed in His Character; His Divine likeness. With this in mind,redemption is but the doorway to His Ultimate purpose for man, for Himself.
If this can be understood when asked what the chief end of man is, we will have something more to respond with than pious words. |
| | 2007/9/2 16:31 | |
| | Re: Why is this a true statement, though not literally found in the Bible? | |
Ormly asked me
Quote:
... do you recall ... 'which was the son of Adam,'
Of course you're right!
And no, I didn't recall... but, I do have something to say about it... which is that all down through the natural geneology supplied for Jesus by Adam and his sons, the father was the one who conferred the family title upon the son - not the mother.
There is a thread called 'Jacob or Heli' on SI, in which the details of Joseph's entitlement to be called Jesus' 'father', are discussed and compared with Mary's. (I'm not going to quote from it.)
In fact, God Himself was Jesus' father and Mary was His mother inasmuch as she gave birth to Him. It was vital that He should be born of David's line, of the tribe of Judah, but at this point in the history of Israel, God throws a curveball; all previous parameters are suspended - by Mary's miraculous conception and the liklihood that Joseph had been [i]adopted[/i], making his claim as a descendent of David, a purely legal claim (rather than a natural one).
I say all this to broach the possibility that Mary did not supply any part of the genetic material which became the body of Jesus Christ.
This doesn't mean she wasn't His mother, though. But, as God was His father, it is reasonable to say that the 'as was supposed' in
Luke 3:23
Now Jesus Himself began [i]His ministry at[/i] about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) [i]the[/i] son of Joseph, [i]the son[/i] of Heli,
most specifically recounts the 'son of Adam' to [b]Joseph[/b], rather than to Jesus.
What d'you think? |
| | 2007/9/2 17:41 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
dorcas wrote:
Ormly asked me
Quote:
... do you recall ... 'which was the son of Adam,'
Of course you're right!
And no, I didn't recall... but, I do have something to say about it... which is that all down through the natural geneology supplied for Jesus by Adam and his sons, the father was the one who conferred the family title upon the son - not the mother.
Say no more. You are correct. That is a foundational issue that should always be kept in mind when attempting to sort out the issues. Heres why in my estimation:
Jesus, the man, had to come by procreation. That was the only way if the human "Lamb of God" who would take away the sin[s] of the world could ever come on the scene. God could never die for man. Only a man so intimate with God as to be, in [u]reality[/u], so one with Him, not only by Nature but by Character, therefore equal to the Father, could. Jesus, by the Christ of Glory, so in union with Him as to be God in flesh accomplished the task.
Creation was ended on the sixth day the only way a sinless being could enter this world with a sinless Nature was by the sinless seed of a father. I'm sorry, no earthly father for that? How about the seed of our Heavenly Father through the life of a young virgin maiden.
That is still a procreation birth, isn't it?
I hope that helps my case... :-) |
| | 2007/9/2 18:49 | |
| | Re: | | Dorcas, you were right above. Ormly is not looking at the italicized words in Luk 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."
In all four cases where it says "the son" in this one verse alone - they are italicized, which means, it is not in the Greek.
|
| | 2007/9/2 18:51 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
HE_Reigns wrote:
Dorcas, you were right above. Ormly is not looking at the italicized words in Luk 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."
In all four cases where it says "the son" in this one verse alone - they are italicized, which means, it is not in the Greek.
Please don't hi-jack this thread. Kindly make you reply's over on the other one. I give that one to you to say all the things you wish to say. |
| | 2007/9/2 19:00 | |
| | Re: | | Ormly, could you please define "hi-jack" ?
And please tell, which of your threads here am I permitted to post to ? |
| | 2007/9/2 19:44 | |
|
