nikolai_42
Well-known member
Can you cite where I asked that, using those exact words?
Not those words, but you said "be born of Adam's race". What is that if not flesh?
Can you cite where I asked that, using those exact words?
Not those words, but you said "be born of Adam's race". What is that if not flesh?
I would say His eternal origin is subsumed by His eternal nature
And here is where it seems to me you are trying to find something besides (I would't say "beyond", necessarily) what is stated. It's subtle, but it's there. You say Christ took on humanity only to die for its redemption (full stop).
But in reading Romans 8 and Hebrews 2, it's apparent to me that there was something far greater going on that involved a complete condemnation of sin, a complete victory over death and a complete provision of righteousness. So most of what you say seems to follow, but there's a gap. Relationship doesn't mitigate the need for sacrifice nor make it simply a basic purpose that can be grasped in a second or two (in preparation for the supposedly harder understanding of relationship). That relationship is based entirely on Christ's humiliation and sacrifice. Grasp the humiliation and sacrifice and the need for overcoming of sin and the relationship naturally flows.
But His birth was not His inception.
It was merely His appearing.
Jesus being created is a concept I can't accept. Born into humanity, maybe. Or is that what you are saying?
Originally Posted by Cross Reference View Post
I don't believe He took on humanity as you suppose except to die for its redemption.
_____________
As ridiculous as anything I have ever read and in willful opposition to I John 4:2. So sad that Cross Eyed will have some influence, even on this forum. While he makes Adam and Christ to be the same type of beings, except for the death (no resurrection?), the fact remains that Jesus Christ was and is the creator of all . . . . . including Adam.
The student reader should consider Colossians 1:15 -23.
Hats off to Nikolia_42. Your pursuit of the truth is appreciated. And to the involved post by TFTn5280, I say, "don't get discouraged. Very good stuff, so much so, that Cross Eyed has had to summarily dismiss your article . . . . clearly he had no answer." Appreciate the discussion, all.
The OP is about none of the above. Please stay on topic.
Listen, CR, I understand how devastating my post is to your "private interpretation" of Adam's sonship, but I have to take issue with you: it is spot on the mark as it relates to your OP. The only context we have for discussing Adam-Christ relationships are found in Scripture, which is the very place I examine your topic. If you are unwilling now to re-examine your own thoughts in regard to the OP in light of what I present, that is your prerogative. But to dismiss it out of hand as being off topic is but another diversionary tactic that you are so gifted at employing. I am on topic. Either deal with it, or stick your head deeper into the theological sands of your private interpretations. T.
<SNIP>
No further comment.
Nevermind, I am pretty sure your readers think it was on topic. T.
To say that God's plan to save all of His creation and at the same time sit back while evil destroys itself was a brilliant plan is an understatement
First created Adam was essentially the same as Jesus, because at first Adam could no more sin than Jesus who could not sin!
Except for the small fact the Jesus was/is God and Adam ain't...
Except for the small fact the Jesus was/is God and Adam ain't...
<. . . another unlearned and stupid statement born in willful ignorance>
<. . . another unlearned and stupid statement born in willful ignorance>
On second thought, CR, keep posting. Given enough rope, you'll hang yourself. Good day.
Cross Reference said:While keeping in mind both Adam and Jesus are the son's of God, both coming on the scene by the direct Hand of God i.e., innocent, one by creation while the other by procreation:
Cross Reference said:What does the life of Adam have to do with the life of Jesus that He had to be born of Adam's race?
We share in the Adamic sin only because we, like Adam, committed personal sin (Rom 5:12). I do not see why this passage does not bear on the discussion. The fall of mankind in Adam should never be considered without taking into account the truth of Rom 5:12.Jesus and Adam are brothers from different mothers and both are called to be a son of God, They are the only two who ever walked on earth without sin within them as a principality with Adam's time without sin being short lived
Adam did exactly as he was intended to do by bringing all of mankind under condemnation providing the way for all to be saved by Jesus
We share in the Adamic sin only because we, like Adam, committed personal sin (Rom 5:12). I do not see why this passage does not bear on the discussion. The fall of mankind in Adam should never be considered without taking into account the truth of Rom 5:12.
Secondly, Adam's proclivity for sin, was obvious BEFORE he ate the fruit. Before he violated the only stated law for which he was accountable (there are 613 of those in the Old Law), he was curious to a fault, he doubted God openly, he challenged God's commands, He stopped believing that in his sin, he would surely die, he violated his headship as husband, he put his trust in the words of the serpent as he rejected the words of God in Christ, God had ceased to be his guide in life turning, instead, to the pleasant sounding advise of the Tempter, and, he joined in a corporate challenge to God with Satan and Eve . . . . . the first "den of iniquity, " all of this just BEFORE dinner.
Christ did none of these things and was truly sinless. He not only was sinless with regard to the Law, he had his sinful nature fully in check. When you realize that Jesus of Nazareth was the Creator of Adam and pre-existed Adam for that reason, the similarities between he and Adam are few . . . . . the only major difference is that Adam was the first to fall, and Christ was the first to succeed.
We share in the Adamic sin only because we, like Adam, committed personal sin (Rom 5:12). I do not see why this passage does not bear on the discussion. The fall of mankind in Adam should never be considered without taking into account the truth of Rom 5:12.
Secondly, Adam's proclivity for sin, was obvious BEFORE he ate the fruit. Before he violated the only stated law for which he was accountable (there are 613 of those in the Old Law), he was curious to a fault, he doubted God openly, he challenged God's commands, He stopped believing that in his sin, he would surely die, he violated his headship as husband, he put his trust in the words of the serpent as he rejected the words of God in Christ, God had ceased to be his guide in life turning, instead, to the pleasant sounding advise of the Tempter, and, he joined in a corporate challenge to God with Satan and Eve . . . . . the first "den of iniquity, " all of this just BEFORE dinner.
Christ did none of these things and was truly sinless. He not only was sinless with regard to the Law, he had his sinful nature fully in check. When you realize that Jesus of Nazareth was the Creator of Adam and pre-existed Adam for that reason, the similarities between he and Adam are few . . . . . the only major difference is that Adam was the first to fall, and Christ was the first to succeed.