Jesus - Son of Adam?

[Kenny]

Genesis 3:12-13

It was Eve's 'sin'. Adam was there, yet the context informs, it was Eve who sinned. Otherwise, why is Eve questioned about it specifically.

So, you interpretation concerning redemption, is already a problem, aside from other things.

Actually, it was both. It was said Eve was deceived, but Adam sinned willfully when he followed suit. IMV, Adam carries the more weight because he knew better, didn't stop his wife or the serpent, and followed suit. Eve was deceived because she added to the words of God.

In Genesis 3:12-13 Adam went a step further... blamed his wife AND God when he should have owned up to his fault.

How is redemption a problem?

 

[JJ50]

Actually, it was both. It was said Eve was deceived, but Adam sinned willfully when he followed suit. IMV, Adam carries the more weight because he knew better, didn't stop his wife or the serpent, and followed suit. Eve was deceived because she added to the words of God.

In Genesis 3:12-13 Adam went a step further... blamed his wife AND God when he should have owned up to his fault.

How is redemption a problem?

The god character was to blame for setting them up, if the story had any credibility, which it doesn't.

 

[nPeace]

You're a follower of Christ, you say. But your name is nowhere to be found in the Bible. But you can deduce from the words such as 'any' or 'whosoever' etc. etc. that you are truly a follower of Christ.

There is no verse that says 'God is a Trinity'. But I understand the Truth of the Trinity through the use of various verses in the Bible.

So, tell me how is Christ the Second Man?

Good-Ole-Rebel

God does not care about what methods led you to your understanding "Truth of the Trinity"... according to you.
The verses in the Bible doesn't lead you there either.

If I said that Christ is the second men, then I might be able to tell you, but I never said Christ is the second man.
Did you say Christ is the last man? Do you really believe you are right to say that?

 

[leov]

Do you have a source for this? I did not see it in either of Nachmanides commentaries on the two verses it's mentioned.

I’ll be back with information, I do not want to rely on my memory, will have to find my 5 book set of Nachmanides I read a few years ago.

 

[nPeace]

You're a follower of Christ, you say. But your name is nowhere to be found in the Bible. But you can deduce from the words such as 'any' or 'whosoever' etc. etc. that you are truly a follower of Christ.

There is no verse that says 'God is a Trinity'. But I understand the Truth of the Trinity through the use of various verses in the Bible.

So, tell me how is Christ the Second Man?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Actually, it seems the spirit directed me to the scripture for a reason, as I did not remember, it is written.
(1 Corinthians 15:43-47) 44 It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, what is spiritual is not first. What is physical is first, and afterward what is spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven.

You would notice that Paul is not doing a semantics dance.
Paul is making a point of roles. So he says, "the first man Adam'.
Then he says, 'The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven.'

It's not a semantics argument.
So why do Trinitarians love semantic dances? May I suggest, it makes it easy for them to argue for their belief... though the arguments are evidently, still very weak.

 

[Kenny]

The god character was to blame for setting them up, if the story had any credibility, which it doesn't.

Yes... that is the viewpoint of some. I don't agree... but that is my viewpoint.

 

[JJ50]

Yes... that is the viewpoint of some. I don't agree... but that is my viewpoint.

To which we are all entitled.

 

[Kenny]

To which we are all entitled.

exactly!

 

[viole]

Eve did not exist.
Adam had a physical body on creation (Genesis 2:7), before being settled in the garden (Genesis 2:15).

Well, it helps to have a physical body in the garden.
Nobody wants to experience repetitive failed attempts to grab some food, as in the movie Ghost.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

Well, it helps to have a physical body in the garden.
Nobody wants to experience repetitive failed attempts to grab some food, as in the movie Ghost.

Ciao

- viole

I didn't see the movie. Was the ghost trying to grab the food?

 

[viole]

I didn't see the movie. Was the ghost trying to grab the food?

He was trying to grab anything. Shoosh, no contact. But apparently he could sit without falling through the chair and through the center of the earth. I guess ghosts are subject to gravity and have electromagnetic repulsion only on their lower parts.

Amazing.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

He was trying to grab anything. Shoosh, no contact. But apparently he could sit without falling through the chair and through the center of the earth. I guess ghosts are subject to gravity and have electromagnetic repulsion only on their lower parts.

Amazing.

Ciao

- viole

That's Hollywood for ya.

 

[susanblange]

You know it's parable? Did you write it? Then why am I not right in saying you are twisting the text into a huge morass?
It seems the only thing left for one who does this, is to write their own Bible.
Isn't Satan happy with that.

I do not twist the scriptures, I am expounding them. I am a Fundamentalist and I only read the KJV. The creation of Satan was a side effect of the creation of man. He was created as the antithesis of God, exactly the same yet totally opposite. He is called Leviathan which means "huge serpent". There was no talking snake or magical fruit. The serpent was in and part of the Tree of Knowledge. He was "subtil" which means he had an intellect.

 

[susanblange]

Genesis 3:12-13

It was Eve's 'sin'. Adam was there, yet the context informs, it was Eve who sinned. Otherwise, why is Eve questioned about it specifically.

So, your interpretation concerning redemption, is already a problem, aside from other things.

Eve performed the act, at the behest of Adam. Adam was told by God not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge before Eve was created. So she knew the commandment from Adam. As a result of their sin, Eve became wise and Adam was cursed. Adam was doomed to eternal death and Eve was to become the mother of the Messiah.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

God does not care about what methods led you to your understanding "Truth of the Trinity"... according to you.
The verses in the Bible doesn't lead you there either.

If I said that Christ is the second men, then I might be able to tell you, but I never said Christ is the second man.
Did you say Christ is the last man? Do you really believe you are right to say that?

Yes, I know. You said incorrectly that Christ is the second adam. Which the Bible says He is not. He is the Last Adam. The Bible says Christ is the Second Man. (1 Cor. 15:47) Thus my question to you.

How is Christ the Second Man?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Actually, it seems the spirit directed me to the scripture for a reason, as I did not remember, it is written.
(1 Corinthians 15:43-47) 44 It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, what is spiritual is not first. What is physical is first, and afterward what is spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven.

You would notice that Paul is not doing a semantics dance.
Paul is making a point of roles. So he says, "the first man Adam'.
Then he says, 'The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven.'

It's not a semantics argument.
So why do Trinitarians love semantic dances? May I suggest, it makes it easy for them to argue for their belief... though the arguments are evidently, still very weak.

That answers nothing. Lot of smoke though.

Why is Christ called the Second Man? He wasn't the second man really. Cain was.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[nPeace]

Yes, I know. You said incorrectly that Christ is the second adam. Which the Bible says He is not. He is the Last Adam. The Bible says Christ is the Second Man. (1 Cor. 15:47) Thus my question to you.

How is Christ the Second Man?

Good-Ole-Rebel

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

That answers nothing. Lot of smoke though.

Why is Christ called the Second Man? He wasn't the second man really. Cain was.

Good-Ole-Rebel

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.

 

[74x12]

in my years of learning i would start looking for Kabbalistic opinion first, After all they are the closest thing to original school.

What is original school?

 

[nPeace]

I do not twist the scriptures, I am expounding them. I am a Fundamentalist and I only read the KJV. The creation of Satan was a side effect of the creation of man. He was created as the antithesis of God, exactly the same yet totally opposite. He is called Leviathan which means "huge serpent". There was no talking snake or magical fruit. The serpent was in and part of the Tree of Knowledge. He was "subtil" which means he had an intellect.

There are no scriptures to support anything you are saying.
If you disagree, please show me them.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are no scriptures to support anything you are saying.
If you disagree, please show me them.

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