Jesus - Son of Adam?

[nPeace]

The Genesis account does include magic fruits, but more important is that you appear to be denying the book of Job.

You evidently misunderstand the account, and so misinterpret, and misrepresent it. That apparently is the case with the book of Job also.
It's not surprising, if one has the presupposition that these accounts are myths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You evidently misunderstand the account, and so misinterpret, and misrepresent it. That apparently is the case with the book of Job also.
It's not surprising, if one has the presupposition that these accounts are myths.

No, there is no misunderstanding on my part. I am merely using the same standards that you use.

Of course being a literalist opens up far more Bible contradictions than treating some verses as morality tales.

 

[nPeace]

No, there is no misunderstanding on my part. I am merely using the same standards that you use.

Of course being a literalist opens up far more Bible contradictions than treating some verses as morality tales.

Of course you are not.
You are using your own standards, so please don't state what you cannot support... again.
I do not... like many who don't know much about the Bible, think that Adam and Eve's eyes were literally closed before they ate a particular fruit. Or that they gasped in shock at their nakedness, as though they only realized they were naked after eating.
I understand the Genesis account, and it makes more sense than the fairy tale about fish that got tired of sea food and decided to grow feet and lungs, so they could taste some land bugs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course you are not.
You are using your own standards, so please don't state what you cannot support... again.
I do not... like many who don't know much about the Bible, think that Adam and Eve's eyes were literally closed before they ate a particular fruit. Or that they gasped in shock at their nakedness, as though they only realized they were naked after eating.
I understand the Genesis account, and it makes more sense than the fairy tale about fish that got tired of sea food and decided to grow feet and lungs, so they could taste some land bugs.

At least my standards are consistent. And please, do not pretend that you know more about the Bible. Why are literalists so quick to make false claims about others?

Unlike you I understand that the Adam and Eve story is a morality tale at best. As is Job. You cannot have a consistent approach to the Bible since it so clearly contradicts itself.

You believe that the serpent was Satan, cursed to crawl on his belly for all time. At least that is what Genesis says.

 

[nPeace]

At least my standards are consistent. And please, do not pretend that you know more about the Bible. Why are literalists so quick to make false claims about others?

Unlike you I understand that the Adam and Eve story is a morality tale at best. As is Job. You cannot have a consistent approach to the Bible since it so clearly contradicts itself.

You believe that the serpent was Satan, cursed to crawl on his belly for all time. At least that is what Genesis says.

I have only one thing to say...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have only one thing to say...

I see that breaking the rules of the forum is your last gasp. The fact is that you cannot understand the Bible due to your prejudices. You have to try to change the meanings of clear contradictions. And then you can't even act as a Christian is told to act in your own Bible. That is rather pathetic to say the least.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Since Jesus was not born from imperfect seed, like all mankind born through Adam, he did not inherit the defect passed on by Adam to all mankind (Romans 5:12).

Then why would he be called the 'son of man?' And the word for mankind in hebrew is actually the word adam I thought, though I know the new testament was only written in greek. (right?)

 

[nPeace]

I see that breaking the rules of the forum is your last gasp. The fact is that you cannot understand the Bible due to your prejudices. You have to try to change the meanings of clear contradictions. And then you can't even act as a Christian is told to act in your own Bible. That is rather pathetic to say the least.

I have the right to laugh at jokes don't I? Isn't that what one does when someone cracks a funny joke?
You make the claim to know what I believe - that the serpent was Satan, cursed to crawl on his belly for all time.
To me, that's funny. ...and Christians are not commanded not to laugh.
I rather laugh than argue with someone who is going to stick out that I believe something for which I don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have the right to laugh at jokes don't I? Isn't that what one does when someone cracks a funny joke?
You make the claim to know what I believe - that the serpent was Satan, cursed to crawl on his belly for all time.
To me, that's funny. ...and Christians are not commanded not to laugh.
I rather laugh than argue with someone who is going to stick out that I believe something for which I don't.

Please, you know that you broke the rules. Aren't you a bit dismayed by the fact that non-Christians can be more "Christian" than the Christians here?

You said that the serpent was Satan and now you see your error. An honest person would have fessed up.

 

[nPeace]

Then why would he be called the 'son of man?' And the word for mankind in hebrew is actually the word adam I thought, though I know the new testament was only written in greek. (right?)

Born not from imperfect seed from Adam.
Luke 1:34, 35
34 But Mary said to the angel: “How is this to be, since I am not having sexual relations with a man?” 35 In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. And for that reason the one who is born will be called holy, God’s Son.
...but born to / through humankind (flesh) - Mary.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Born not from imperfect seed from Adam.

Yeah, but why then is he frequently called the 'son of Adam?'

 

[nPeace]

Yeah, but why then is he frequently called the 'son of Adam?'

Where is he frequently called son of Adam?
He is frequently called 'son of man', about eighty times in the Gospels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not say that. Please.
I am not talking to you any more. You are not only dishonest, but deceitful and dangerous.
Good bye.

So you dig the hole even deeper. You claimed this:

"However, scriptures show that there was indeed no talking snake, nor magic fruit. It shows who was talking to Eve (Satan the Devil), and what taking the fruit meant (she disobeyed God's instruction).
The fruit had no powers. It was a fruit, from a tree."

The only one that convinced Eve in the Genesis myth was the serpent. You are now trying to change Genesis since even you know that the story fails.

I am not the dishonest and deceitful one here. You simply cannot be consistent. That is a result of literalism. The Bible contradicts itself far more for a literalist than for one that can see beyond what are clearly stories for children.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Where is he frequently called son of Adam?
He is frequently called 'son of man', about eighty times in the Gospels.

That's what he surely would have been preached as being when Paul or whoever was preaching to the Jews, because adam is their word for man. So he would have been called the son of adam.

 

[nPeace]

That's what he surely would have been preached as being when Paul or whoever was preaching tot he Jews, because adam is their word for man. So he would have been called the son of adam.

I guess that's how you interpret it. I don't read it that way in the Bible.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Where does the Bible say Christ is not the second Adam?


You just gotta love the "fronts", on these forums.

You are asking me why Paul called Christ the second man?
I am sure you read Paul's words, and I am sure it answers everything pertaining to what you are asking. You also read my words, which are there for that reason.
Sorry the "smoke" got to your eyes.

Let me see if I can extract the main parts and magnify them for you.
Paul is making a point of roles.
It's not a semantics argument.

Sorry if the last line is a bit smokey. It's important.
The role of Adam as a father, is replaced by Christ as a father. To whom? Redeemable mankind, since Christ is the second man to correspond to the perfect man Adam.Meaning, no man after Adam was perfect, but Christ. Therefore Christ was the only man (perfect) in a position to pay the price for Adam's sin - ransoming (buying back) redeemable mankind, thus becoming their life-giver (life-giving spirit).

Hope that was clear.

The Bible calls Jesus the Last Adam. Not the second Adam.

Your first sentence describing the role of Adam describes Christ as the Last Adam.

Your statement that Christ is the Second Man because He corresponds to the perfect Adam, I believe is on the right track, yet incomplete.

Your last statements about Christ's redeeming role describe Christ as the Last Adam.

In other words, all that you said could have been said of the Last Adam. The term 'Second Man' doesn't even need to be there. Why does God interject the term 'Second Man'? God uses these terms 'last' and 'second' for a reason.

Understand I am not saying I have the complete answer. It is something I have considered for sometime.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't agree...

I prefer the understanding of a Jewish interpreter, who was schooled in scriptures, of what was written when he said, "Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,7 But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being. AMPC - emphasis mine.

In essence, he became man to operate legally in the earth and take back the authority that the first Adam gave away.

Addendum: Yes, I know that Adam and son of man does not mean the same. There are many titles for Jesus. Second Adam, Lamb of God, Son of Man, Lord, Master, God, and more... all expressing who He is.

Just as there is YHWY Shalom, Rapha, Rohi, Jireh, Tsidkenu, etc from the Tannakh that express who God is (which incidentally are also part of the expressions of Jesus too).

That would be 'not god', hence the problem with 'jesus' the man, being a separate person. In other words, Jesus is the 'Lord', because the spirit, His spirit, is the Lords. That's the only way one could call Him Lord. The way you you described it, isn't the way one would describe a 'man nature man spirit', human, anyway.

So, anyway, that's the only way to call Him Deity. Anyone calling Jesus a deific name in the Bible, would have meant it literally, you can't go to other religions for answers like that.

They wouldn't have called a man, who they perceived to be a man, a deific name.


That means they didnt equate the 'human' with the persona, no matter how human .
Anyways Im going to leave it there

 

[Kenny]

That would be 'not god', hence the problem with 'jesus' the man, being a separate person. In other words, Jesus is the 'Lord', because the spirit, His spirit, is the Lords. That's the only way one could call Him Lord.

There are two assumptions here.

1) That it was a separate person (viewpoint but not established). No different than me being a spirit, having a soul and living in a body. Three parts but not a separate person
2) "Jesus is the 'Lord" because His spirit is the Lords" - no definition. As Thomas said, "My Lord and my God" - Both Lord and God.
3) Still The Word made flesh, but yet still man.

The way you you described it, isn't the way one would describe a 'man nature man spirit', human, anyway.

And yet, Paul and I just did.

So, anyway, that's the only way to call Him Deity. Anyone calling Jesus a deific name in the Bible, would have meant it literally, you can't go to other religions for answers like that.

They wouldn't have called a man, who they perceived to be a man, a deific name.

That means they didnt equate the 'human' with the persona, no matter how human .
Anyways Im going to leave it there

If they did call Him a deific name, then they recognized who He was.
If He was God, He has the capacity to empty Himself of HIs attributes being God for which "Nothing shall be impossible"
The only way The Word could come into this world is to become man and God established the parameters in Genesis 1. To do differently is to become a liar (which He did not and would not because God cannot lie). Thus, He had to come as a man
Paul was of the view that is was possible and indeed a fact. I have no reason to doubt him as he would understand the scriptures with the Jewish cultural viewpoint.
He had to be God for only God can absorb the bankruptcy of mankind and still remain solvent as an entity.[/QUOTE]

 

[leov]

What is original school?

Melchizedek

 

[74x12]

Melchizedek

Melchizedek was probably Shem (Genesis 9:26, Genesis 14:18) ... he had more of an Enochian religion. Enoch was his ancestor and Noah's grandfather. (Jude 1:14) No doubt Enoch left them some writings and definitely wisdom/knowledge. I'm not sure why you think that he was more in line with Kabbalah which was started by Jewish rabbis in the medieval age. In my opinion it's untrustworthy because it has heresy and it's also probably based off of Babylonian magic. Like the tree of Life for example was never "magic" in the Bible. But in Kabbalah and in Babylon it was magic.

Here is Assyrian art showing the magician's tree of life which they thought of as more of a means to sorcery/shamanism. You can even see the two winged creatures(angelic beings) helping the kings with their magic.

But Jesus is the real tree of Life. He hung on the cross(wood, tree) and died to bring in new Life from the dead.

The real tree of Life is when someone has received the holy Spirit. Then they are watered like the garden of Eden so they can bear fruit unto eternal life. This fruitfulness is the real fruit of the tree of Life. (John 15:5, Isaiah 51:3, Isaiah 32:15)