Cross Reference
New member
Having written all of that equivocation, will you now answer my question without equivocating further?????!
ECT Why is Jesus called the second Adam or last Adam?
- Thread starter Cross Reference
- Start date
Having written all of that equivocation, will you now answer my question without equivocating further?????!
oatmeal
Well-known member
Read the first line.
Cross Reference
New member
"In all aspects", remains my question because it is true and your equivicating only means you are saying, no, with no "rational" reasoning to support you and indeed to none to support your non-Trinitarian , anti-Christ, dogma.
Cross Reference
New member
delete
TFTn5280
New member
:up:
Good post.
Good post.
Cross Reference
New member
What do you mean "Good post"?? What part was good if he was correctly answering what I asked? I qualified the question. It is a yes or no answer.
You aren't having a relapse, are you?
Last edited:
oatmeal
Well-known member
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?
oatmeal
Well-known member
Thanks
Cross Reference
New member
He needed nothing else!! So much for your knowledge of how being reconciled to God could only be accomplished.
Have you?? Obviously not!.
oatmeal
Well-known member
You reject John 5:30?
I can of myself do nothing. He is not equal to God in any way without God being his sufficiency. II Corinthians 3:5 and neither are we.
Cross Reference
New member
That opinion relegates you to a cult religion __ but then you have proven that to be accurate in many prior posts. You are a disingenuous person.
End of my discussions with you on any level.
jsjohnnt
New member
How utterly ridiculous. CR believes that mankind saved itself, if he believes that Jesus was not Son of Gad and Son of Man at the same time . . . and, clearly, he does not.
Cross Reference
New member
Would you please post any wording of mine that has led you to conclude any of that?
Last edited:
jsjohnnt
New member
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.
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.
jsjohnnt
New member
Nope. If you can't remember what you have written, too bad. The rest of us do remember and your opinions are in print. You have denied that Jesus was God before the virgin birth and during his earthly walk. That is all any of us need to know.
I John 4:2 is your nemesis, not me.
Cross Reference
New member
Oh, I remember perfectly well and what you say is a lie. So defend yourself from being called a liar by me! Show where I said such things without qualifying my remarks ___DO IT or hold your accusations???
Cross Reference
New member
Not so new repackaged new age thinking.
Last edited:
nikolai_42
Well-known member
I intentionally quoted that passage because it included the idea of "bringing many sons to glory". 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. 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. He is Captain of our salvation. His being "firstborn" of many brethren indicates primacy, not merely chronology. 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. 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. Adam was never meant to take the role of Lord in that sense - only of a hired hand (so to speak). 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
TFTn5280
New member
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.