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

Cross Reference

New member
Yes, in some aspects of life, yes.

God gave us eternal life. God gave us of something he has.

God has eternal life, we now have eternal life.

Eternal life = eternal life

God is righteous, we have been given His righteousness.

II Corinthians 5:21

God is spirit, we have been given of HIS spirit.

I John 4:13

God does His will, we can do God's will, when we do God's will, are we doing God's will?

If we can do God's will and God can do God's will, when we do God's will we are doing what God does. That puts us on an equality with God.

We must understand that equality does not mean identity.

We can be equal but not the identical being.

A garden stake in the ground can be 90 degrees to the ground,

A magnificent flag pole 100 ft tall with our stars and stripes on it is 90 degrees to the ground.

The angles are equal, but the objects are not identical

Even so, we can have the equal angle on truth that God takes, but we are not God.

Even so with Jesus Christ, He took God's angle on the truth, not man's, thus Jesus Christ did God's will perfectly, right on target.


Having written all of that equivocation, will you now answer my question without equivocating further?????!
 

TFTn5280

New member
:up:
CR,

No one needs to be sinless to have some equalities with God

God gave us eternal life. Romans 6:23. God gave us of something he has.

God has eternal life, we now have eternal life.

Eternal life = eternal life

We have an equality with God in the eternal life category

God is righteous, we have been given His righteousness.

II Corinthians 5:21

We have equality with God in the righteousness category (Of course, having it and living it are two different things)

God is spirit, we have been given of HIS spirit.

I John 4:13

We have been given of HIS Spirit, does His spirit = His spirit? Yes, and we have been given of HIS spirit

God does His will, we can do God's will, when we do God's will, are we doing God's will?

If we can do God's will and God can do God's will, when we do God's will we are doing what God does. That puts us on an equality with God.

We must understand that equality does not mean identity.

We can be equal but not the identical being.

A garden stake in the ground can be 90 degrees to the ground,

A magnificent flag pole 100 ft tall with our stars and stripes on it is 90 degrees to the ground.

The angles are equal, but the objects are not identical

Even so, we can have the equal angle on truth that God takes, but we are not God.

Even so with Jesus Christ, He took God's angle on the truth, not man's, thus Jesus Christ did God's will perfectly, right on target.

Good post.
 

oatmeal

Well-known 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.

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
He needed nothing else!! So much for your knowledge of how being reconciled to God could only be accomplished.



Have you?? Obviously not!.

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
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.


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
With complete regard to how I explained it, yes. How could He be?
In fact, He couldn't be??

Now pay attention, Livelystone.
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
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.

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.
 

jsjohnnt

New member
Would you please post any wording of mine that has lead you to conclude any of that?
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
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.


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
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.

Not so new repackaged new age thinking.
 
Last edited:

nikolai_42

Well-known member
re Hebrews 2:9-18

Nicolia comments:



My reply:

For clarities sake you hurt yourself. Try letting it say what it says.


Understood


Wrong assumption! Here is the reason you are dismissing/overlooking: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory" vs 10.. SONS as in "brothers.

Again, the reason God created Adam. God wants SONS -- a vast family of them for His Habitation and they need to be without "spot or wrinkle". Jesus, the man, being the "First of first fruits" Who is coming again in clouds of Glory bringing His "Brothers" with Him.

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.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
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.
 

TFTn5280

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?

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.
 
Top