ECT Why is Jesus called the second Adam or last Adam?

[Nang]

No, I didn't even see the question, so in that context I may not have been satisfied. I thought he did a good job of pointing out similarities between God and humans.

Oatmeal is an Arian.

 

[Cross Reference]

Let

In all aspects no.

John 5:30 God does what God does because He can.

Jesus can of himself do nothing.

have you considered taking scripture seriously?

That is where you are dead WRONG! His acts are never of an arbitrary nature. If you believe they are, you will believe anything. Try seeing it as Jesus not doing anything of Himself. Why?, because of His unwillingness to act in any way contrary to the heart and MIND of His Father.

"Let this MIND be in you that was in Christ Jesus . . "

 

[Cross Reference]

There may be two traditions going on here and instead of ignoring one or the other, the Biblical writers have left both of them in.

In any case, in my view they both seem a way to connect Jesus with humanity by metaphorically showing a common ancestry all the way back to Adam and Eve.

Why "metaphorically" when it is factual evidence of His human origin?

In a way and because He was intimately related to humankind it could be said humanity did saved itself. Who else could save it except one who had sinless human blood? That, however, needs be qualified and God has given His written word to us to understand how He made that happen that it would come about by the life and death of such a one He would miraculously insert into Adam's race as the only way it could happen.

". . . . death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." Romans 5:14 (KJV)

 

[Cross Reference]

No, I didn't even see the question, so in that context I may not have been satisfied. I thought he did a good job of pointing out similarities between God and humans.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Cross Reference]

Actually, there is serious doubt as to the inclusion of "is the Lord." Nestles 26 and 27 omit the phrase. The most up-to-date gk texts? You betcha. Good enough for me. Make note, however, that the deity of Jesus is explained and given proclamation is many passages of Scripture. Some of you people are stuck in the very distant past, defending bible translation that have many revisions (i.e. the KJV, 1611, 1632, 1669 and on and on). Understand that thousands of gk mss have been discovered over the years, since King James and other early translations. Nestles 27 is takes advantage of all of these discoveries. To appeal to earlier english/greek texts, is to deny the latest in gk mss discoveries.

Ooops. I lost the quote I captured. It had to do with I Cor 15:45 -49 and the inclusion of "is the Lord." I do know the bias of the neighbor denying the inclusion of this phrase, but, whatever, he is correct, in my opinion.

Question no, statement: You obviously must believe man now lives with an "up-to-date human nature" that requires him to have new "up-to-date Greek translations" to give him understanding.

 

[Livelystone]

Jesus did not have the spirit of man AKA Adam in Him.

Jesus did have the Spirit of His Father

Consequently,

Jesus "walked" by the Spirit within Him that was/is the Spirit of God.

Therefore, Jesus did nothing that His Father did not tell Him to do.

It is not that Jesus was not abritary but because when you saw Him you saw the Father

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father

 

[Cross Reference]

Jesus did not have the spirit of man AKA Adam in Him.

Then he could not have been physically born to even begin to qualify to redeem man.

 

[Livelystone]

Then he could not have been physically born to even begin to qualify to redeem man.

Not true,

Had Jesus had the spirit of man in Him that was handed down from Adam Jesus would not have been able to redeem man because the spirit of man has sin living in it that makes all who have it unclean.

 

[Cross Reference]

Not true,

Had Jesus had the spirit of man in Him that was handed down from Adam Jesus would not have been able to redeem man because the spirit of man has sin living in it that makes all who have it unclean.

You don't understand that sin is NOT of the mother one receives when born but, of the father. Think that through and you will understand why Mary didn't have to be sinless.

 

[Cross Reference]

I intentionally quoted that passage because it included the idea of "bringing many sons to glory".

Why an idea when the scripture is clear on the matter they will be “brought unto glory”?
Why purposely change such easily understood passages?

I am very aware of the verse, but when you read the entire passage, you get a larger picture of where Christ stands in relation to Adam and all those of his race. Hebrews 2 details where Christ stands - even as appearing in flesh - in relation to Adam. He took on flesh. But His role is one of trailblazing and administering, where Adam's is one of following.

"Following?, " when Adam was declared by God to be the federal head of the human race?

Even as a son...even as one who is called one of Christ's "brethren", it is emphasized that Adam was created lower than the angels and that is what Christ came in to.

Before Adam transgressed he was lower than the angels?? Where do you get that understanding? I see him being a superhuman creature who could never die, given such authority and "soul power" angels never possessed.

He is Captain of our salvation. His being "firstborn" of many brethren indicates primacy, not merely chronology.

Jesus, yes! Primacy as in, soon to be, "Glorified" elder Brother.

Adam's role is - and always has been one of steward. He was GIVEN dominion over the animal world. To us is GIVEN the STEWARDSHIP of the mystery.

And Jesus was given dominion over ALL of God's creation. Jesus was "full of grace and truth", which Adam had none but was intended to receive he had eaten of the "tree of life", because he was created and needed to prove himself as Jesus, even though born of God, proved Himself..

Jesus spoke in parables of those who were put in charge over the Master's vineyards. Christ, however, has natural and inherent supremacy. His is a role of Lordship, ours of stewardship.

Yes. And? Where does that leave redeemed man in His scheme of things? What should he look forward to in his new redeemed state? What should he be doing upon realizing what his redemption affords him that is intended by God for him to perform/submit to?

Adam was never meant to take the role of Lord in that sense - only of a hired hand (so to speak).

And had Adam eaten of the “Tree of Life”, what then? What would Adam have become? Why not give your understanding of what would have happened had he done so in his unfallen and then the result of his fallen state?

That hired hand - that servant - is given the honor of being called a Son as one entrusted with great responsibility (that is still thrust upon him). To whom much is given, much is expected. But it is still given. Christ had authority and position and rights long before man was on the scene. The Father gave Him a name and the right to sit with HIM on HIS throne and we are given the same right with Christ (as overcomers).

I am sorry, Nicoklai, I fail to see the relevancy in all that.

Again...Adam was not ever capable of taking on what Christ in God bore before Creation. Otherwise, he would have been able to handle the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil without being tainted. In one sense he became as God. But he was never meant to have that - nor take on any roles that are due God alone. He was always intended to take his roles as those subservient to the Father's and the Son's.

Again I ask, What would have happened had Adam eaten of the “Tree of life” before he transgressed? Was it not God's intention he eat of it? What disposition would he have come into possession of?

Otherwise, we get into the realms of Mormon theology where we have what God has - our own planets/kingdoms over which we have complete authority.

But Adam did have complete authority over God’s earthly creation and probably more, given his "soul power" however much in promise form it could only be given him. He blew it! He proved himself unworthy to eat of the "Tree of Life" to see its fulfillment in righteousness. What do think would have happened had he eaten of it in unrighteousness? Why do you now think he was kicked out the garden?

 

[Livelystone]

You don't understand that sin is NOT of the mother one receives when born but, of the father.

If you paid any attention to what anybody or anything other than the same voices you have been listening to for years have to say, you would know I have always said the reason Jesus did not receive Adam's handed down unclean spirit because of the sin that lived within it was, because Joseph was not involved in any way during the conception of Jesus. For the same reason the sin of Adam was not handed down to Jesus neither was the spirit of Adam handed down because Joseph was not involved........ it was the Holy Spirit of God that impregnated Mary and not Joseph or any other man, Without a man being invloved in the conception of Jesus, Jesus could not get the spirit of man

This is why David was conceived in sin but Jesus was not. For the same reason this is why David had the unclean spirit of man for his source of life (where the sin resides making it an unclean spirit) while Jesus had the Holy Spirit of God that is without sin for His source of life.

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Think that through and you will understand why Mary didn't have to be sinless.

Mary did not have to be sinless but she did have to be a virgin to conceive and deliver the baby Jesus

FYI the life is in the blood and the blood of the mother is not used in the forming of the baby, consequently, the "life" in Mary's blood did not play a part in forming Jesus, however her life did play a major part in the selection of Mary to be the woman used to bring Jesus into the world.

For that matter before childbirth the blood of the mother does not even come in contact with the unborn child as the placenta keeps them separate, Don't bother trying to think this through, instead find a good knowedgable OBGYN and ask them

Fair enough?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

If you paid any attention to what anybody or anything other than the same voices you have been listening to for years have to say, you would know I have always said the reason Jesus did not receive Adam's handed down unclean spirit because of the sin that lived within it was, because Joseph was not involved in any way during the conception of Jesus. For the same reason that the sin of Adam was not handed down to Jesus through the spirit of Adam was because Joseph was not involved........ it was the Holy Spirit of God that impregnated Mary and not Joseph or any other man, Without a man being invloved in the conception of Jesus, Jesus could not get the spirit of man

This is why David was conceived in sin but Jesus was not. For the same reason this is why David had the unclean spirit of man for his source of life (where the sin resides making it an unclean spirit) while Jesus had the Holy Spirit of God that is without sin for His source of life.

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.



Mary did not have to be sinless but she did have to be a virgin to conceive and deliver the baby Jesus

FYI the life is in the blood and the blood of the mother is not used in the forming of the baby, consequently, the "life" in Mary's blood did not play a part in forming Jesus, however her life did play a major part in the selection of Mary to be the woman used to bring Jesus into the world.

For that matter before childbirth the blood of the mother does not even come in contact with the unborn child as the placenta keeps them separate, Don't bother trying to think this through, instead find a good knowedgable OBGYN and ask them

Fair enough?

Good. :wave:

 

[Cross Reference]

If you paid any attention to what anybody or anything other than the same voices you have been listening to for years have to say, you would know I have always said the reason Jesus did not receive Adam's handed down unclean spirit because of the sin that lived within it was, because Joseph was not involved in any way during the conception of Jesus. For the same reason the sin of Adam was not handed down to Jesus neither was the spirit of Adam handed down because Joseph was not involved........ it was the Holy Spirit of God that impregnated Mary and not Joseph or any other man, Without a man being invloved in the conception of Jesus, Jesus could not get the spirit of man

This is why David was conceived in sin but Jesus was not. For the same reason this is why David had the unclean spirit of man for his source of life (where the sin resides making it an unclean spirit) while Jesus had the Holy Spirit of God that is without sin for His source of life.

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.



Mary did not have to be sinless but she did have to be a virgin to conceive and deliver the baby Jesus

FYI the life is in the blood and the blood of the mother is not used in the forming of the baby, consequently, the "life" in Mary's blood did not play a part in forming Jesus, however her life did play a major part in the selection of Mary to be the woman used to bring Jesus into the world.

For that matter before childbirth the blood of the mother does not even come in contact with the unborn child as the placenta keeps them separate, Don't bother trying to think this through, instead find a good knowedgable OBGYN and ask them

Fair enough?

If it was that, as you say, you said all that before then consider it was hidden amongst other convoluted entrees when you said it that I, out- of-hand, would have missed it. I don't read much of what you write so it would easy for me to do that.

 

[Livelystone]

If it was that, as you say, you said all that before then consider it was hidden amongst other convoluted entrees when you said it that I, out- of-hand, would have missed it. I don't read much of what you write so it would easy for me to do that.

One of the main reasons you do not know more than what you do is because you are not reading all of what I write to you and not just skipping over what I say in conversations with others. I have noticed you always stop when something does not perfectly agree with you in the realm of entirety when it is possible I am only approaching a smaller aspect and not the entirety of the whole matter.

In regard to my teachings being convoluted? Some of the subjects are complex,and consequently are hard to explain but the reasoning behind the truths are always verifiable by law. This is true of Paul as well as of me. (2Pet.3:16 KJV) This holds true in the above case that is also provable through the same law of the seed that to this day you unfortunately still remain flippant about.

In the writing I have here on us using the law as God would have us to use it, by your own words you threw the baby and the bath water both out together on the very first page over some mox nix "i" dotting or "t" crossing not being exactly to your liking

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76526

However, if you grasp the post in its entirety and make it a part of your foundational approach to learning the truth, all of the Bible and all of its mysteries will begin to unfold in their entirety, and not just in part.

If what I write is not clear point it out to me and I will take the time to try and make it easier to understand my point.

Fair enough?

 

[Cross Reference]

One of the main reasons you do not know more than what you do is because you are not reading all of what I write to you and not just skipping over what I say in conversations with others. I have noticed you always stop when something does not perfectly agree with you in the realm of entirety when it is possible I am only approaching a smaller aspect and not the entirety of the whole matter.

And this is part the reason why you will never receive from me anymore than maybe the time of day -- you arrogant, self righteous, (____!)

 

[Livelystone]

And this is part the reason why you will never receive from me anymore than maybe the time of day -- you arrogant, self righteous, (____!)

Pot meet kettle :wave:

 

[nikolai_42]

Why an idea when the scripture is clear on the matter they will be “brought unto glory”?
Why purposely change such easily understood passages?

As far as I know, I'm not changing anything - but that phrase is one that comes in the midst of the description of Christ's humbling Himself and taking on humanity - even then known as the "Captain" of our salvation. And in the previous chapter, it is clear what Christ came from in glory. And in the ensuing chapter (Hebrews 3), we read that Christ is son OVER the house and that we ARE that house. And doesn't Hebrews 12:2 tell us that Christ is the very author and perfecter of (our) faith? This is not the picture of a man being brought to equality with Christ, but of favor with God. There are statements made that, alone, seem to imply (or even outright say) that man becomes equal with Christ. But to so read them plays with these other declarations that clearly make Christ above men.

"Following?, " when Adam was declared by God to be the federal head of the human race?

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus
Hebrews 3:1

Before Adam transgressed he was lower than the angels?? Where do you get that understanding? I see him being a superhuman creature who could never die, given such authority and "soul power" angels never possessed.

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?
Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Hebrews 2:6-9

Remember, God made Adam to have dominion over all of creation (Gen 1:26). That was before he fell.

Jesus, yes! Primacy as in, soon to be, "Glorified" elder Brother.

Was glorified, is glorified and shall be glorified.

And Jesus was given dominion over ALL of God's creation. Jesus was "full of grace and truth", which Adam had none but was intended to receive he had eaten of the "tree of life", because he was created and needed to prove himself as Jesus, even though born of God, proved Himself..

Okay...

Yes. And? Where does that leave redeemed man in His scheme of things? What should he look forward to in his new redeemed state? What should he be doing upon realizing what his redemption affords him that is intended by God for him to perform/submit to?

It has not entered into the heart of man the things God has prepared for them that love Him.

And had Adam eaten of the “Tree of Life”, what then? What would Adam have become? Why not give your understanding of what would have happened had he done so in his unfallen and then the result of his fallen state?

To begin, I repeat : the Son of God was already of such nature that He inherently bore the knowledge of good and evil in the sense that Adam didn't.

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Genesis 3:22

Adam was taken from dust. He may have had glory, but he was still not the same nature as the Son of God who naturally had this understanding but was perfect. There was a reason Adam hid once he ate of the fruit. He had disobeyed God. Overstepped his bounds. He was in territory He was never meant for. So for him to eat of the Tree of Life would have been catastrophic. Something grotesque would have come of it. I venture to say that the giants in the land as spoken of in Genesis 6:4 would have been some taste of what an immortal, fallen Adamic race would have looked like. Otherwise, we have to believe that God simply was jealous that someone might be like Him (an insecure God??). I mention that only because it is the only alternative I can see to believing Adam was not intended nor fitted for such knowledge, power or position. It ruined him.

Guarding the tree of life with the fiery swords was an act of mercy at least as much as it was of preservation.

I am sorry, Nicoklai, I fail to see the relevancy in all that.

What you were responding to was simply an extension of expressing that which was natural in the Son of God and that which was given to man. Man's glorification is always to be second-hand. That is, it will never be merited apart from Christ. That's why overcomers may sit down with Christ and rule with Him in His throne even as He overcame and sat down with the Father in His throne. We are not sitting in the Father's throne as Christ is, but we are sitting in a throne with authority given us by the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
I Corinthians 15:24-27

If Christ is ruling and reigning with the Father, then this shows that the Father's throne is still above all. All things under Him are contained in (and ruled over by) Christ, but the Father's throne is excepted. Likewise, as we sit down and rule with Him, we are not being told we are given equality with Christ in government, but apportioned His authority as men who are found faithful.

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
Hebrews 3:1-3

Take, for example, the disciples. Were they promised to rule and reign over everything as Christ, or were they assigned specific apportioned authority?

Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Matthew 19:27-28

Whose house we are....

Again I ask, What would have happened had Adam eaten of the “Tree of life” before he transgressed? Was it not God's intention he eat of it? What disposition would he have come into possession of?

I don't know. It is merely speculation, but I suspect things would have gone on as they were, Satan (since he would still have tempted Adam and Eve) would have been cast out - maybe even destroyed (?) and things would have continued on as they were with Adam enjoying constant communion with God.

But Adam did have complete authority over God’s earthly creation and probably more,...

What scriptural support do you have for that supposition? You don't believe he was made "a little lower than the angels" but Hebrews seems to make that statement clearly.

... given his "soul power" however much in promise form it could only be given him. He blew it! He proved himself unworthy to eat of the "Tree of Life" to see its fulfillment in righteousness. What do think would have happened had he eaten of it in unrighteousness? Why do you now think he was kicked out the garden?

Why did Adam and Eve hide from God after eating? They had brought a certain autonomy on themselves that meant being self-aware in a way they weren't before. Shame was not a part of their makeup previously. But because they were now self-focused, their eyes and intents were fixed on themselves. Were they to live forever, they would have become terrors, I suspect. Amplifying their separation from God - or at least fixing it eternally. What difference would there have been between them and the 1/3rd of the angels that followed Satan in his rebellion?

Adam was kicked out for disobeying God. And in eating, he had already separated himself from God to some significant degree. So the garden was no place for him anymore anyway.

 

[Cross Reference]

Originally Posted by Cross Reference

“Why an idea when the scripture is clear on the matter they will be “brought unto glory”? Why purposely change such easily understood passages?”

As far as I know, I'm not changing anything - but that phrase is one that comes in the midst of the description of Christ's humbling Himself and taking on humanity - even then known as the "Captain" of our salvation.

Consider the “Word” humbled Himself before becoming or in order to become, the human Jesus Christ by birth, __ purposed for the created man Adam.

Speaking of Adam:

“Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.”

Speaking of Jesus:

“But [now] we see [the human] Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” Hebrews 2:7-9 (KJV)

And in the previous chapter, it is clear what Christ came from in glory.

Just to be clear, what part may I ask?

And in the ensuing chapter (Hebrews 3), we read that Christ is son OVER the house and that we ARE that house.

Yes.

And doesn't Hebrews 12:2 tell us that Christ is the very author and perfecter of (our) faith?

Again, yes, however, He became the author while in His human state, not His glorified one. Authorship was part of His reward for obedience unto death.

This is not the picture of a man being brought to equality with Christ, but of favor with God. There are statements made that, alone, seem to imply (or even outright say) that man becomes equal with Christ. But to so read them plays with these other declarations that clearly make Christ above men.

Given my above remarks, do you still see it that way?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cross Reference
"Following?, " when Adam was declared by God to be the federal head of the human race?

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus
Hebrews 3:1

But of a new creation, to be sure and accurate when declaring it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cross Reference
Before Adam transgressed he was lower than the angels?? Where do you get that understanding? I see him being a superhuman creature who could never die, given such authority and "soul power" angels never possessed.

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Hebrews 2:6-9

Remember, God made Adam to have dominion over all of creation (Gen 1:26). That was before he fell.

Interesting, you should be replying with what also came to my mind before I read this passage from you. Perhaps God desires us to understand something that needs repeating? . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cross Reference
Jesus, yes! Primacy as in, soon to be, "Glorified" elder Brother.

Was glorified, is glorified and shall be glorified.

OK. When “was” Jesus glorified He while on Earth? Can you give a reason why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cross Reference
And Jesus was given dominion over ALL of God's creation. Jesus was "full of grace and truth", which Adam had none but was intended to receive he had eaten of the "tree of life", because he was created and needed to prove himself as Jesus, even though born of God, proved Himself..

Okay...

<whew>

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cross Reference
Yes. And? Where does that leave redeemed man in His scheme of things? What should he look forward to in his new redeemed state? What should he be doing upon realizing what his redemption affords him that is intended by God for him to perform/submit to?

It has not entered into the heart of man the things God has prepared for them that love Him.

Prepared for him, is not that what I asked. I was asking about something that, while having to do with being a new creation, was nevertheless the same thing required of Adam. [hint: cf John 14:15]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cross Reference
And had Adam eaten of the “Tree of Life”, what then? What would Adam have become? Why not give your understanding of what would have happened had he done so in his unfallen and then the result of his fallen state?

To begin, I repeat : the Son of God was already of such nature that He inherently bore the knowledge of good and evil in the sense that Adam didn't.

Then what did Jesus learn that took 30 yrs to be received and that by the Hand of God by submitting to His Spirit within him that God could then trust Him to handle His glory in the world for the next 3 1/2 years by merely by knowing His written Word? [hint: having to do with Jewish priesthood] See anything in this that might apply to God's requirement of us for ruling and reigning with Him?

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Yes

Genesis 3:22

Adam was taken from dust. He may have had glory, but he was still not the same nature as the Son of God who naturally had this understanding but was perfect.

Perfect and yet lower than the angels?? Jesus had to be proven as Adam. Why?

There was a reason Adam hid once he ate of the fruit. He had disobeyed God. Overstepped his bounds. He was in territory He was never meant for. So for him to eat of the Tree of Life would have been catastrophic. Something grotesque would have come of it.

Consider the salvation of all of Adam’s progeny could never never have been redeemed by being spiritually equal with God upon the eating of it. Who could ever have been the "lamb of God"? “Catastrophic” you say!? Beyond our comprehension! It would have culminated into never ending procreation of eternal evil, with Satan at the helm. And remember, only love can create.

Guarding the tree of life with the fiery swords was an act of mercy at least as much as it was of preservation.

And act of the utmost importance-necessity.

If Christ is ruling and reigning with the Father, then this shows that the Father's throne is still above all. All things under Him are contained in (and ruled over by) Christ, but the Father's throne is excepted. Likewise, as we sit down and rule with Him, we are not being told we are given equality with Christ in government, but apportioned His authority as men who are found faithful.

The body of Christ is being prepared for eternity __ for equality in Him, i.e., one Mind, His and in us as an eternal, “singleness of eye”.. (cf Rev 12:5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cross Reference
Again I ask, What would have happened had Adam eaten of the “Tree of life” before he transgressed? Was it not God's intention he eat of it? What disposition would he have come into possession of?

I don't know. It is merely speculation, but I suspect things would have gone on as they were, Satan (since he would still have tempted Adam and Eve) would have been cast out - maybe even destroyed (?) and things would have continued on as they were with Adam enjoying constant communion with God.

Not really speculation at all if you remember Jesus is called the “second Adam”. As I said above: Jesus had to prove Himself as required of Adam. The result of Adam’s eating the tree of Life before the fall is explained to us in the account of Jesus’ transfiguration on the Mount. The Word would then have been in Adam for him, by a series of moral choices, become his strength to destroy Satan. Ergo, redemption of man not needed. Adam didn't get to first base.

All else becomes, irrelevant.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

All else becomes, irrelevant.

Actually, speculation on what would have happened if Adam had eaten of the tree of Life is completely irrelevant.:crackup:

 

[Jacob]

How would it be needed that Christ be fed and live on Gods word and be filled with the fullness of God if He was those things when He was born???

LA

I believe Jesus was the Son of God, and that at no point in His life was He not the Son of God.

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. That is what the scriptures state.